Most Overrated Movie Directors II
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Website: www.deepfocuslens.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/deepfocuslens...
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Paraphrasing here, but I think Kiarostami said, “The movies that put me to sleep are the ones that keep me up at night.”
Love your reviews. They’re intelligent without being listless. Nice illustrations too!
Just want to say, I’m really loving your videos. As someone who works in the industry - it’s refreshing to hear your take from a critical point of view. It reminds me of being in film studies at UC Berkeley and taking a deep dive/being surrounded by articulate film enthusiasts. Keep up the great work!
What do you do?
Maggie has been hard at film analysis for 10 years. She's awesome. Always has a unique take on things.
@I Coroa Lol. Aka she's smarter than me.
I think American Gangster is another exception in Ridley Scott's career. Probably his most underrated film.
Agreed. People criticize it because their tired of gangster movies but look at the end result. It stands on its own and boasts some great performances. Im glad someone said it.
Agreed
I love his directorial debut"the duelists"don't know if its considered to be underrated.
Ridley has made one " great " movie since Blade Runner, the rest fall into sort of mediocre, alright or above par
His worst is easily Black Hawk Down. Twenty minutes or so of flimsy setup, followed by two hours of zero characterisation or dramatic structure, just a load of people you don't care about running around behind ruined buildings, firing guns and shouting at each other. A total waste of time.
I don't think Villeneuve's earlier films fit into this description at all, and there is a diversity in films like Incendies, Prisoners and Enemy which belies this idea of safeness and homogeneity. And I think he has managed to carry his Quebecian sensibility into Hollywood without fatal compromise.
Villeneuve's message is changed on each movie. He's trying to tackle different ethics or ideas on each movie. I think he's the best director alive (together with Lars Von Trier and Martin Scorcese).
His best film was Sicario.
Blade Runner 2049 and Dune have been very overrated movies from him. Though I do get excited for all his movies.
@@rancosteel I personally think his best film is ENEMY.
@@TheFourthWinchester Dune was terrible and the soundtrack was dreck. Blade Runner was pretty good I just didn’t like some of his casting choices and the death of K was weak. After being hunted by the police for a third of the film to have him die in a mild snowstorm was lame. He should have been gunned down as his sacrifice for exposing the truth.
I would be totally ecstatic if Villenueve just picks up Book 7-9 of the Expanse and adapt them into a trilogy. I feel his style totally fit that series.
The expanse has already been made into a tv show and it's amazing!!
It's too early to say if Jordan Peele is overrated. Spielberg is not overrated in the slightest. The man has more genuine classics to his name and had a greater influence on cinema than arguably any filmmaker in history.
Agree 100%
I agree.
I agree. The man isn't perfect, and yes, there are clumsy and mawkish parts in many of his movies. But what Spielberg does well, he does *phenomenally* well.
Not to mention that he's a trailblazer. It's easy to say that this movie or that is "typical blockbuster" in hindsight. But people forget that the scope of "Jaws," or the style of "Private Ryan" are now typical simply because people were influenced by Spielberg doing it first.
@@WastedPo Very true. And look at the year 1993. Spielberg released "Jurassic Park" and "Schindler's List" that year. Looking at both films, you would never in a million years believe the same man directed both of them.
@@Guigley Coppola has called Spielberg the George Gershwin of filmmaking for that very reason. He is the only filmmaker that can shoot the perfect popcorn blockbuster and follow it by a very serious historical auteur style drama. No other filmmaker posses that ability. And now he also did a musical, and quite well. I mean what else!
Love your content. Do you also review short films as well? :)
Bro really said "This Danish man born in 19th century had a simplistic view of sacrifice. Sure it's one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time, but that darn simple brain of his got in the way"
Wow I have never been this early before. Love your videos! ❤️🎬
Ridley Scott's _The Duelists (1977)_ was really good, it was his first film and one I've never heard anyone mention. Some of the best cinematography I've ever seen. The most recent one of his I saw was _All The Money In The World_ , it was mildly interesting and too long.
I SAW The Duelists after someone else mentioned on a Critical Drinker thread. I never even knew that was Ridley Scott film!
Such a strange thing seeing a young Harvey Keitell
Oh yeah. He came out strong with his first film. It could've easily been a disaster but he pulled it off well. Now hes like a marathon runner with bad hips. He kinda resents the audience and it feels like he's that guy who farts in an elevator full of people.
His only good film. There, I said it.
Compared to Barry Lyndon it doesn't hold a candle.
Most movies these days are way too long.
you say interesting things all the time, it's amazing. seems to be improvised, which talks about how much must you be naturally thinking about cinema at any hour. thank you for it all
I also noticed you admire Gaspar Noes work. Have you seen Alejandro Jodorowsky films? Or the color of pomegranates ?
What you consider making the comments larger? I'm struggling to read them.
Lars von Trier is the cinematic equivalent to wanting to be good at chess but not giving enough of a shit to actually get good so you just drop an anvil on a chess board and claim you won even though you missed the king
You will never get me to say anything bad about the man who made "Dogville" happen, Yes, I'm a Kidman fanatic. So I'm biased. But I think it's a brilliant analysis of the human condition as a whole. But I really respect von Trier's work as a whole. I love the way he's willing to challenge his audience, to take chances, to do whatever it is he wants to do. "Dancer in the Dark" and "Anti-Christ" are both excellent.
I just have always appreciated what he is willing to do, and I never left the theater unchanged.
And yet your comment has the same troll-ish spirit as so many of Von Trier's movies! Secret soulmates yet to discover each other? Perhaps! Ps. I like Von Trier so I own my trolling lol.
Antichrist is one of the few tolerable things I’ve seen from him because it felt like the first time he ever bothered to get some actual ideas beyond belligerent screaming and lip quivering even if I’m not really a fan of how they were executed. Most times I’m watching one of his movies I feel like I might as well spend two hours staring at a black screen and have a more profound and affecting experience. If he was at least good at getting a visceral reaction out of me I’d at least give him that but usually I just think “oh ok who tf cares”
😂🤣😂
@6:18: If anything, *Denis Villeneuve* is one of the few film directors who are *not overrated* here in Canada, *along with Xavier Dolan and Kim Nguyen.* Although they are certainly right about the "trauma and discomfort", for someone who thinks that he "lacks any warmth and emotional richness" has obviously never seen his "world" films that are made for international audiences rather than Hollywood ones. His 2010 film adaptation to the play *"Incendies" is one of the most devastating stories anyone could ever see!*
Those who write off Villeneuve while having only seen his Hollywood homework, rather than his world-oriented works of love, are like self-styled Kubrick "experts" who've never heard of "Barry Lyndon" (1975).
I used to watch you when you made film reviews in front of your webcam in the early days of CZcams. Glad to see you're still alive.
Regarding Spielberg, I just watched The Color Purple for the first time, and I think that film encapsulates what I dislike the most about his directing style. The character interactions feels so staged and overly calculated, almost like an animated Disney film. I still think it’s pretty good, just not as great as it could have been. I think a filmmaker like Spike Lee could’ve given a lot more life and vigor to it.
Thats my biggest problem with His style on dramatic movies, TH color purple never invested me so much cause the characters felt like a Cartoon, even doing awful things or suffering, It looked like the one filming didnt gave af about His characters and what they felt
Jaws was a masterpiece though. The first film shot in the open sea.
When I saw The Color Purple I had the uneasy feeling that I was watching a musical with the songs taken out. There would be a mawkish build up just as you do when writing a musical, then....nothing. The sentimentality swamped it, he was still not mature enough to let that go.
@@tonybennett4159 I thought the sentimentality of the last 5 minutes was earned though
Spike Lee? After what he did to Oldboy?
I am curious to know your thoughts and feelings about the works of John Cassavetes, Tarkovsky, or Apichatpong and Carlos Reygadas.
As an artist 'world building' - for a script of my own - in my little work shop in the woods; I really appreciate your intellectualizing of director's styles.
I did feel that Villeneuve got kind of 'sweaty' with Sicario.
Even though I loved the Dark Knight movies, I really wish Nolan would make something like Memento or Insomnia again.
Warner Bros will never give him $200 million again, so maybe thats good.
re Spielberg, watch The Post...there is a scene with a bunch of people in a fairly small space - and the way he choreographs their movement from one end of the space/frame to the other along with perfect camera blocking to capture both the movement of the person and the room as a whole is just breathtaking. It's virtuoso filmmaking that most people don't notice because it looks seamless.
@Jeff Carlin but that one scene is spectacular. And does not call attention to itself.
@Jeff Carlin the one I described above
I think Spielberg is the Kurosawa of our time. by that, I very much specifically mean his blocking. the way he frames a shot is crazy. i legit love The Post almost entirely from its blocking. I got goosebumps from it.
The way Spielberg shoots long takes and blocks films with many actors can only really be compared to Kurosawa or maybe John Ford. I think Kurosawa’s scripts are arguably much more interesting, but as far as filmmaking and directing they are equals imo.
@@bencarlson4300 oh ya Kurosawa and John ford are in my Rushmore. Scorsese is my favourite but objectively I can't put him in the Rushmore. It's tight.
@@crobeastness Scorsese has an argument given his massive and lengthy resume
I'm really starting to love your videos. You're very knowledgeable and articulate. Also, I agree with you 95% of the time. Btw, I find Tarantino overrated but nobody seems to agree with me :) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was so empty and forgettable.
I agree with you 100%.
He is one of the most overrated directors of modern Hollywood. His movies and characters in them lack any depth and so is the dialogue written for them, so when they get killed I hardly feel emotional loss/sadness. The violence in his movies is senseless and graphically overdone but not in a shocking way but over exaggerated splatter comic book way. I do understand that’s the style he is going for but it doesn’t work for me as it turns a serious movie subject into satire. Having said that I do enjoy his films for entertainment value only since I find no particular intellectual thematic artistry or story and character exploring depth. And if there’s any thematic artistry it’s mostly stolen from Asian cinema snd spaghetti western aesthetics. He calls it “homage”.
I do give him credit for the music score though. The song choices for his films are second to none. I love listening to Tarantino playlists on Spotify.
That movie was the best of that year…pulp fiction? Kill bill? Hard eight? Reservoir dogs? Ok which movie did your write and direct?
@@gpapa31 well thats what makes him unique in my opinion
Been saying this for years: Tarantino is all style & no substance.
Fell asleep during Vampyr? It’s only like 70 minutes. Good grief, some people are strange.
Vampyr is one of my favourite films.
I like Villeneuve but I didn't realize it lol. After watching this I went back and looked at his library of work and I really liked Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, Bladerunner 2049, and Dune. The interesting thing is I didn't know he made all of those movies. I had never heard his name until I watched Dune two years ago.
William Friedkin was a master. The Exorcist, Sorcerer, The French Connection and To Live and Die in L.A. Awesome cinematography.
Friedkin is one of the best to ever do it just based on those four films, I love his docu-drama style gritty realness. I haven't seen anything else of his that was good but those four alone put him in the top tier of directors to me. _To Live and Die_ has some plot points that make no sense but still a really good movie.
@@ainslie187 plot meaning?
Eh.......Friedkin is okay.
@@darnellmajor9016 He was a great rules breaker. The car chase in the French Connection was not sanctioned and he had no permit to film on the street. He did the same thing in To Live and Die in L.A. at the airport. He just rolls the camera and gets it on the first take. Remember, he shot on film with large cameras. No digital post and a million retakes.
Maggie doesn't like The Exorcist. Maggie is wrong on that movie.
Love most of your videos..wrong about Villeneuve. He's not overrated like Nolan, his themes are present throughout every single one of his movies. One of them being the cycle of revenge, the other being exploring the feminine archetype. Even with Prisoners I'd say that's true and even enemy. My favourite of his is Arrival and Incendies.
actually i think you're missing "the Martian" here, wich in my opinion was an awesome movie and proof that Ridley Scott still can pull it off with the right story. What a great feel good movie and a true sci-fi flic at heart where the main character has to cleverly beat the environment instead of a boring hollywood villian wich i thought was very fresh and original with a very normal ship crew that acts how real astronauts would work together
Black Hawk Down was also superb and All the Money in The World was also good. The Russell Crowe comedy A Good Year is also hugely underrated.
Yes. That was a good movie. I think people criticize him so much because the expectations are so high.
@@TheWaynos73 A Good Year was terrible. One funny scene in the whole thing (him falling into the pool) and a performance from Russell Crowe that lacks charisma. How is that even possible?
@@andreraymond6860 cheesy self indulgent crap basically
i read the book before the movie and I have to say The Martian was so faithful to the book and the tone was spot-on. And damn, the bowie song at the end was perfect.
Would love to hear your thoughts on Boiling Point! I saw it today and thought it was a masterpiece.
Dennis hopper was great!Wesley snipes also!
@@anthonymusto3537 I mean the 2021 film hahaha
@@tonimashdane33498 he is and I appreciate u trolling my troll!
Not sure if you have seen it before, but I really think you would enjoy "A Moment of Innocence" (1996). Would love to hear your review someday.
Alfred Hitchcock, best Director of all time in my opinion. He also Directed my favorite film of all time, the 1943 film called "Shadow of a Doubt " with Joseph Cotton from the movie Citizen Kane.
Shadow of a Doubt is Hitchcock doing David Lynch before Lynch was even born. For me it's Hitchcock's greatest movie.
Vampyr has far more depth than homeboy is giving it credit for. The whole point is that you never really know if there even *is* a vampire or if it's just the paranoia of the characters, distracting them from noticing the actual villain doing tangibly bad things. You can read a lot of social commentary into that.
Plus, that "shadow carnival" scene is one of the best special effects showcases in the 1930s.
Check out "Matchstick Men" by Ridley.
Matchstick Men was okay. Good Nic Cage performance. Watched it once, liked it, never watched it again.
Only one I can make a real argument for is Ridley Scott. The movies he's made that I really enjoy, I adore but he's always been very spotty and inconsistent, which has made me into a Tony Scott fan cos with his late brother, I knew what I was getting into. I do love Ridley's no Fs given attitude recently tho
Yup he's too old for this shit and wants the best hemorrhoid donut money can buy.
I dislike using the term overrated, the work is what counts, could care less about their press. Spielberg: always about family either real, created or absent. Dreyer: see Day of Wrath, my favorite of his. Villeneuve: the anti-Spielberg. Scott is hit and miss, I liked tThe Last Duel.
There's nothing like underrated/overrated, filmmakers tell stories they love in some cases they learn from their failures some gets inspired from their success. Good/bad everyone has their own taste. Filmmaking is genuinely one of the job where they work without knowing the outcome, respect evry filmmakers atleast they're making something for someone.
Glad to see such comment ✨
You really tried to sound smart there.
@@bbudimanalqodri It's just an opinion and you have all the right to disagree bro.
2:23 I would have to challenge you on that claim that Steven Spielberg always approaches history from a distance. I think Saving Private Ryan is a perfect example of getting us in there on the ground.
Throughout the film, we have no indication of what is going on in the wider context of the war (only brief exposition scenes of the high command green lighting the mission of the plot). All that we know is what is experienced by our protagonists with information gathered from the other regiments and soldiers they encounter in their search for Private Ryan. In between the brutal violence lurking around every corner in hostile territory (certainly not a conservative depiction either if I may add), we get scenes of great dialogue and character building were we learn about their motivations, how they each talk about their own individual ideas of the mission and sense of duty. A particular scene that comes to mind is when Captain Miller wants to take out the machine gun nest and the others protest saying that is not their mission whereas he retorts their mission is to "win the war" (conveying the disconnect between the average individual soldier and the greater cause).
Then of course there is the brutal depiction of D-Day from an on the ground first person POV perspective. Aside from the opening shot of the beach setting the scene (albeit facing the water thereby still leaving us audience still blind of the defenses we are to soon encounter), basically the entire sequence is shot from the POV of a soldier. We cannot see outside the boat, we can only hear the mortar shells exploding in the distance with the anticipation of the beach as the the ETA is announced and are told "see you on the beach" expecting a mad dash. Finally we get the first glimpse of the enemy as the door drops open but before we can even process what we are looking or take a step forward, most of our comrades are mowed down by a hellish volley of machine gun fire and from that point on it is just a firsthand POV experience of the carnage, chaos, and terror as experienced by the soldiers (cut in with the occasional enemy POV shot from behind the machine gun firing upon the Americans).
Anyways, we all have our subjective opinions and that is the art of film. I enjoy your videos and commentary a great deal....subscribed!
that person who said denis films have the same themes cant have been serious right.
I am not a fan of Spielberg's historical movies either but to me there is an exception : Munich. I remember it being less conservative and more intellectually stimulating. And it contains one the most impactful death scene I have ever seen on screen : the killing of the spie on the barge.
I also love Munich. I saw it in cinemas with friends & we arrived just as it was starting to we had to sit in the front & it was so intense & scary I just was held in suspense & paranoia for the duration. One of my favourite cinema experiences.
Schindler's List was conservative and not challenging?
I was surprised when you mentioned my take on Harmony Korine. It was fun to listen to. But still, look online. I consider him overrated because you'll never hear a critical voice where his work is concerned. I love the art of film and wish I heard more critique. Also, I can't abide even the thought of kids going around killing cats. Anybody could make that recipe: make the audience uncomfortable. Is there anything else?
To me it seems the critique of Harmony Korine is pretty common, and just look at how few Blu-ray releases there have been of his movies (very few). It slightly seems like he is too much of a thorn in the side of what big corporations want to depict about America. Too undermining to the values that our America-centric worldview is based on.
I must admit I am not American, but as Rammstein sang "We're all living in America", as a partial insider I think I can comment on what beliefs our world is built on. From that point of view Harmony is certainly a spiritual filmmaker to me. I've never been to a "spring break" as seems to be a tradition in America, but his "Spring Breakers" really is a spiritual journey to me to contemplate the religions and other belief-systems our life is built on. It is a distorted mirror to highlight how such a journey in American schools probably is a natural part of it. The "good" and "bad" are quite co-dependent and flow seamlessly from one into another. Taking drugs and going to excesses of criminal materialism is the natural continuation of how people are brought up in schools.
It seems like a natural coming of age movie. You can easily imagine the guy at the start of the movie "getting high on Jesus" has gone on a similar spiritual journey to that of the main characters in his youth, going through the processes of getting high on drugs and high on Jesus. Of course it is a distorted, grotesque image, but it is a spiritual image. It might not be about America, but it seems to be a distillation of the duality of some sort of world view down to it's core, not necessarily condemning, but depicting how the school system, the Jesus freaks and the drugs and criminal excess are part of the same thing, co-dependent, you can't really have one without the other.
To me as a semi-insider (because culturally "we are all living in America") this is a spiritually rich and personal movie. It does not seem to be a movie for everyone, I understand that, but I wanted to express my view that America really isn't offering any other auteurs on the level of Korine, at least such that are willing to really critique the "American Dream" and the belief that "liberals" and "conservatives" are somehow not a part of a co-dependent whole, and give a depiction of a world where school and criminal materialism are quite naturally linked.
After writing that I feel I have to re-watch it, but I don't know if I'm ready yet. To me it seems spiritual movies are difficult to view at just any old time.
I have a lot of trouble relating to characters in American movies. They seem to be too far removed from any reality in some imagined version of how the world works, drenched in and mouthpieces of some conscious and unconscious ideologies. For me if creating the characters that couldn't be depicted in the regular American movies was the only thing Korine did, he already beat pretty much everyone working in Hollywood at the moment. It gives a visceral believability, a sense of spiritual truth that one can't really get from the ideological vehicles made for demographic groups ("liberals" and "conservatives" seem to be the main demographic groups of the era, it seems) that are created to enforce and fortify their stilted views of reality. Korine offers a way to explore something deeper than 1)"I want entertainment (stupid means entertainment, I want stupid)", 2)"I want truth (the conservative kind)" or 3)"I want truth (the liberal kind". Not falling to these three categories and leaving open the possibility that he actually has a different world view and is open to exploring something deeper makes him already beat out most of the rest of the people obsessed with spreading dumb escapism or ideological simplicity (stupidity again) in the guise of "truth". He does not have to be a genius, he can only leave it open to the imagination, I can imagine the rest and I can be hopeful for some future for the film medium. There are a few film makers like that in the world, he is not quite alone, but he probably is the best to my knowledge in America - seemingly the centre of forced ideological duality separated from reality.
@@udopadrik9971 I see Korine as a very American movie director. I don't love that capitalism and art have to co-exist in the same factory/art studio. He sells you what you want to see. Specifically, killing a bunch of cats and then acting all sensitive and then wrestling and then blah blah blah. You don't have to have plots in your work. You don't have to have any actual food in a meal. Although food actually nourishes. I enjoy films with plot. Gummo was boring and disgusting, a flavor of food I don't really care for. He's just another capitalist hack serving up tasteless slop to those who hunger for that sort of gumbo.
@@udopadrik9971 Can you please elaborate? I need maybe a hundred thousand more words. Then I'll finally understand.
Seriously, I'm sorry you wasted your time. I'm not reading all that. 🤣 It's not going to change my mind anyways. America sucks and all that shit and so does Harmony.
@@jameschestnut9839 Well, sorry I thought I was replying to someone who was capable of in-depth analysis of their own preferences and movies. 🤣 Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between people who just want to vent or validate their feelings and those open to discussion and analysis. I guess you are more of the "My feelings are valid! Don't use words! I want someone to give me a hug, because a movie made me confused"-type?
Please review Prisoners (2013) and Incendies (2010)...
Jordan Peele's best film was Keanu.
Christopher Nolan, Denis Villeneuve, Ridley Scott, Robert Eggers, Darren Aronofsky, Guillermo del Toro, Noah Baumbach
Darren Aronofsky is overrated af!!
Agreed, he has some fun ideas and some of his wackier moments are entertaining but I don’t think his stuff is anywhere near as deep as he thinks. Also he writes his movies on the dumbest desk in the world.
Except for Requiem for a Dream.
I don't understand. Darren is one of the best directors today. How can you call him over rated? If he is over rated, then who is under rated?
@@rancosteel Agree & I thought Pi, the mathematical symbol, was good too.
I agree with you on Ridley Scott to a degree, but don’t see the change in his career as badly as you do. I think there was something so epic in scope about his early work and it was really sci-fi at its best. I understand your points about Gladiator too, though I enjoy the film. What really redeems him for me is the Martian. I think it was a wonderful adaptation of the book and it really showed how you can strip away a lot of the misconceptions about the laws of nature that people have watching sci-fi and still have the movie be entertaining and suspenseful. He may not have been the best choice to direct the Martian (I really like the idea of Lord and Miller adapting Weir’s other books) but to me it was a modern sci-fi classic.
The Duelists 👌
The Martian was really well executed and definitely one of his better movies in recent years, but still felt a bit safe and was no where near the work of art that was Alien or BR.
Omg I am dying blade runner is my favorite movie of all,time…before that movie what did the future look like how many copy cats
Outside of film circles a lot of people won’t even know who Dreyer is. Besides being one of the best to ever do it, most people unless they get deep into film will never see his work. Villeneuve and Nolan are the two best directors working right now. Film school snobs who are told by professors what to like are who I find usually coming after them.
I get the criticisms leveled against Nolan and Villeneueve, but I almost don’t care because those things don’t bother me much. Tenet IS overly confusing and impossible to understand on a first viewing, but I don’t think that’s as much a fault as it is Nolan’s style at this point. And Villeneuve, though I haven’t seen his works prior to Incendies, really hasn’t made something I don’t immediately connect with, especially Prisoners.
Very good lighting in this video.
Love your work, Ms Lens and rarely disagree with your critical opinions. But on the matter of Schindler's List, I absolutely disagree. And it was a movie I was quite prepared to mock had it turned out to be hollow, but empty Oscar bait. Yes it has a prologue featuring real concentration camp survivors performing some ritual with candles, but it's hard to get too worked up about this possible hackery since filming those people gave Spielberg the idea to seek out and interview those remaining survivors willing to share and preserve their experiences on a video. Good project! But I really have to disagree that it lacks an immersive quality, especially when it comes to the depiction of Amon Goeth's daily life as a camp commandant. I was always stunned by how real it seemed. Turns out that Spielberg staged various eyewitness accounts of some atrocious events down to the tiniest detail. That approach could so easily have misfired, as it did in Lincoln, but for me it made Schindler's List a unique experience. Even Kubrick decided he wouldn't try to top that and abandoned his Aryan Papers movie! Which is a shame, as it would have been quite interesting to see Berlin and Belsen recreated in suburban London.
I agree, it still has teeth despite its sentimentality. I can’t imagine a darker portrayal without the film entering torture porn levels of shock for the sake of shock.
Denis Villeneuve not emotionally engaging?? Have you ever watched 'Incendies'? One of the most emotional and gut-wrenching films I have ever seen!!!
@@darnellmajor9016 yeah it'll be interesting when that happens.
@@darnellmajor9016 Sold out? Gtfo, lol.
@@reneepeck8094 lmao exactly, big films = bad, what a snob
@@darnellmajor9016 Blade Runner being your display picture makes this comment so damn funny lol
@@darnellmajor9016 The comment doesn't make sense with a Blade Runner display picture. That's what made it funny
I do agree about Ridley Scott, but I was pretty impressed with The Last Duel. Easily the best thing he's made in over a decade, maybe since Thelma and Louise haha. Not a perfect movie but it felt like he actually was trying to make a good movie for once.
why is everyone forgetting about The Martian, i thought thats such a good movie from Ridley
@@dennisblassnig9144 I didn't forget the Martian, it's not his worst by any means but pretty mediocre compared to what he's capable of (Blade Runner, Alien)
@@andrewreed4924 i think the Martian is one of the freshest sci-fi Films of the last 10 years
@@andrewreed4924I actually like The Martian a LOT more than Blade Runner.......................never cared for the latter.
The Last Duel is a wonderful film. The Counsellor, Kingdom of Heaven (though it was underrated for a reason; its theatrical release was chopped to pieces), and House of Gucci have been underrated by critics as well. Robin Hood is mediocre. I like Prometheus and The Martian. Alien: Covenant is a shambles. So is the shapeless, indulgent and pointless Black Hawk Down.
I grew up not thinking that much about Spielberg. But over the past 1/3 of my life, he's become easily one of my favorite directors. I could talk about his filmography for hours here, but I'm gonna keep it pretty minimal right now.
One thing that I truly appreciate about his work, his career, is the diversity in the types of genres he's addressed. Everything from Close Encounters to Jaws to Minority Report to Jurassic Park to Indiana Jones to Saving Private Ryan to E.T. to Amistad to ... whatever, The Terminal -- I mean, there's hardly a single kind of movie he HASN'T tackled.
And I truly think that Schindler's List is one of most powerful films ever made. I remember seeing it in the theater when it first came out. I cried so many times. What a movie. I mean, damn. Watched the trailer again recently, and it made me tear up.
If anyone thinks Schindler's List is too mainstream then PLEASE direct me to a Holocaust movie with more disturbing imagery. Theres literally a scene where a little kid hides in a toilet full of shit in this movie. And they show it!! My God. Please forgive Spielberg for giving us a little hope at the end.
@@jimmyblaze4097 Son Of Saul has some very disturbing imagery. The director was very delinerate about shooting the film in a very specific was so as not to exploit thye subject matter for sensationalism. It was very succesful at NOT SHOWING certain things while suggesting them in a very graphic way.
@@andreraymond6860 Thanks!
@@jimmyblaze4097 And it's disturbing without coming across as exploitative or obscene. Anyone can just string atrocities together.
yup. totally agree with you. and schindler's list is a no-go for me after the only viewing. It was too much for me. One of the greatest movies ever made that I can only watch once. It was too disturbing, too dark, too real. and I'm a horror fan.
In defence of "Gladiator": You are saying it's the most boring of the "gladiatorial epics of that time", but I feel the need to remind that no "gladitorial epics of that time" existed before "Gladiator" made it a thing. It had been a genre dead for decades that Ridley managed to bring back from the dead.
The rest is obviously subjective, but I would also say "Gladiator" is the best of that genre, with awesome performances (Phoenix really helps one imagine the loneliness that some forms of power can bring) with a great examination of the relationship of artists (or sportsmen) to their audience. To a creative person this main theme of dealing with what the audience wants really spoke to me. The way that the audience wants to participate in seeing new heroes rise and emperors fall, and how entertainment holds an empire together. This was and still is a very exciting and heart-felt way to depict what the concepts of power, an empire and a popular hero mean.
It's not a popular opinion I know, but I'd also say "Prometheus" is one of the most exiting and, conceptually interesting big budget sci-fi movies in a long time. I'd definitely rate it higher than all of Nolan's movies after the "The Dark Knight" that I've seen ("The Dark Knight Rises", "Tenet", "Dunkirk", "Interstellar"), higher that "Dune", "Blade Runner 2049". I agree there were a few instances of characters acting stupid, but the vision "Prometheus" presented was more original and dare I say sacrilegious/Lovecraftian than Hollywood is usually able to produce, threatening the centrality of humans and their imagined gods in the universe. This movie with it's world-building, characters, acting, art direction, the visuals in general, and the ending ("let's not go to Earth, the only way to save earth is to go to where the gods came from") puts it higher in my book than probably any "Hollywood movie" that has come out since, with the exception of "Mad Max: Fury Road". I might be forgetting a movie or two, but I'd say Prometheus really is at the best Hollywood has managed to produce in the last decade and a half. Yeah, it might be more a criticism towards all the other things Hollywood has produced, but I actually very much enjoy the movie and will probably watch it a few times in the future instead of any Nolan/Villeneuve.
Gladiator suffers from its own success and ubiquity. I'm certain that if, instead of being a huge box office smash, it was more of a cult hit, film snobs everywhere would be singing its praises. It's just cool to shit on the well known popular stuff. Signals you're a connoisseur of fine film....
I think if you look at it fairly, it is a very good film and one of Scott's best, although much of it is not down to him. The casting was incredible. Obviously Scott's fabled "world building" is all there. The plot isn't complex and Maximus certainly isn't, but it is much more than a simple revenge arc. Its essentially the story of a failed son whose father chooses another to take his place. The score is incredible.
Plus it’s a bit of a rip off of Ben Hur really, in many ways.
Yes i agree. I've talked shit about this movie in the past but it's true. It's like the most popular kid in school who bangs all the hotties and scores all the touchdowns. This film's dick is just too big.
I absolutely agree in every way. Also, I had 4 years of Latin in HS, so I was somewhat sold even before I saw it. :)
I think its success and ubiquity definitely hurt it. I think the casting is just magic, the score is one of my all-time favs, the cinematography is fantastic, it's rife with tragedy and heroism, awesome action, great monologues.
And practically the entire movie is quotable! It's just one forever memorable line after another!
It truly is one film I never, ever get tired of re-watching.
@@aaronjames5276 Indeed. I'm sure you've seen one or two of the analysis videos on CZcams about what makes it special and more than just a summer blockbuster. There are some great video essays on it. All seem to coalesce on the idea that Gladiator appeals to most people on a deeper level than simply "cool sword fights" because its a great study and contrast of the righteous character vs the dishonourable character and how while the path of righteousness may be harder and riskier, ultimately it is the correct way to face the challenges of life. Like all great films , it's core message and themes are timeless while the cosmetics of acting, plot, cinematography, score are just the icing on the cake.
Yes, Maximus is a pretty run of the mill character seeking revenge. On my DVD copy of Gangs of New York, it is described as being in the same epic vein as movies like Gladiator, Braveheart & The Godfather.
I personally love GONY, & while it does have its share of detractors, I think its revenge story is far more interesting than Gladiator. Amsterdam initially wants revenge against Bill The Butcher for killing his father in battle, but when he grows up he ends up getting really close to him in a father/son sort of way. He is conflicted about his feelings. I love the relationship between Amsterdam & Bill, & the ending is really emotional for me.
Also, the film has a lot detail on the living conditions of the area & all the different types of gangs, which I find absolutely fascinating.
Gladiator, which I loved when I was younger (not seen it in years though), is still a run of the mill revenge story. I think its success can be attributed to the fact that it was the first ancient historical epic to come out in a long time.
I agree what you said about Villeneuve, I thought as much as I love Blade Runner 2049 it suffers from being too deliberate. His camera needs to “chill out.” Dune was awesome but was very thin and I had the same issue as you did with it. I really love his film Incendies
Can you elaborate more on the points you made about BR 2049? Like when you said BR 2049 is too deliberate, what did you mean by that for example?
Prisoners is a masterpiece. I see something new with each viewing. Jackman and Gyllenhal were fascinating to watch both together and appart.
Big empty frames, and not in a good way like Antonioni or Tarr.
I love that you interact with your viewers but respectfully, that dude’s take on ‘Passion of Joan of Arc’ is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard since I started watching films seriously.
The assertion that the film is “dependent on one performance” is not a matter of opinion, it is flat out wrong. That movie contains some of the most unconventional cinematography in film history, let alone the time it was released. Dreyer’s film avoids conventional master shots ,eye lines, used a newly available kind of film to better capture small facial details, he lights characters in dramatically different ways, he constructed full scaled medieval style sets (built to reinforce the performances, since you never see the whole set in view) features editing as rapid as any Russian film from the period (over 15 hundred cuts and most don’t match in the conventional sense). There’s entire essays written about the movie’s technical aspects. Hell Joan isn’t even the only noteworthy performance in the movie, casting playwright Antonin Artaud was a noteworthy feat of its own.
It’s great to highlight descent in opinion but this is just somebody who doesn’t know wtf they are talking about.
Wrech him!
Agreed. Ordet and Vampyr are also two of the best films of all time
Sofia Coppola. I have seen most of her movies and while Lost in Translation and Virgin Suicides were pretty good, a lot of her other work like Marie Antoinette and recently The Beguiled, leave a lot to be desired. She is talented but very hit and miss.
Kathryn Bigelow. I don’t understand the big deal with The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. They’re okay movies but Hurt Locker winning best picture? I dunno. Must have been a light field that year. I suppose it was still miles better than Avatar.
You made me chuckle a bit. I think Sofia is kinda like Woody Allen in that you either like their style or don't. I enjoyed Somewhere but if she wasn't Nicholas Coppola's cousin I'd care a little less. I think it was cool to see Collin Farrell in Beguiled and who else is going to keep Dunst moneyed?
I agree with you on both, two good directors and they can make some watchable movies but nothing that will be called a classic. I think Hollywood just wants to prove how much they love female directors and these two benefit from the politics.
@@BishopWalters12 kathryns early films like near dark and strange days are revered as genre classics
@@thechroniccinephile4824 Meh, Near Dark falls apart in the 3rd act and Strange Days is fine but nothing great.
They are whitewashing( if you hate that word give me a synonym) American war crimes, so the academy adores them. That's her catch the last two decades
I still need to see Gertrude and Day of Wrath, hmmm
You are always on point baby
Agree 100% on Korine. 'Nough said. Same with Jordan Peele. I would echo everything you said word for word. Although I would add that in terms of direction, I preferred Us a lot more.
“Lincoln”was in a word, boring. And yes, “Schindler’s List” in another’s hands could have done so much with that story. Spielberg definitely doesn’t push the envelope. Loved, “Duel.”
As much I like Spielberg as a director, I feel his last good film was Catch Me if you Can.
I think with Spielberg, it's gotten to the point that because he's a household name in Hollywood he could make a movie about a brown paper bag and he'll get praised for it, he doesn't have to try anymore
I personally feel WSS was exceptionally crafted and very well made in almost all aspects. It has its flaws, mainly the third act and maybe Ansel’s casting but absolutely brilliant film! And although it flopped at the BO it’s gonna go down as one of his classics. Before that his last great film IMHO was Munich.
@@gpapa31 Agreed, west side story was his best film in a long time
I really enjoyed _Bridge of Spies_ .
@@PurushaDesa personally I loved it too. But I wouldn’t call it great great in the essence of Spielberg all
Time classic category, that’s personal opinion obviously and it’s subjective.
Munich (2006) on the other hand was an absolute masterpiece and one of his most mature and best shot films. The craft of that film is absolutely impeccable. It reminded me of European production 70s films covering Cold War topics but with a more cinematic element. The production design and Spielberg’s ability to transfer you in 70s Europe where terrorism was reigning m is something that I haven’t felt since “The Day Of The Jackal”. In 2008 we also had “The Baader Meinhof Complex” another 70s Cold War European terrorism themed film that also
captured brilliantly that era. But it wasn’t that cinematic.
I think there are certain directors who are greatly elevated by the script, design and cinematographers they work with - a reviewer said this about Villeneuve and I agree up to a point. Villeneuve is a slow-paced director but if he can get a cinematographer like Roger Deans or Greg Fraser on board he can get away with it. I suspect Ridley Scott is cast in the same mould and there are others, like Fincher, who has benefitted from having brilliant cinematographers and excellent scripts in the past. Even the Coen brothers have fallen away in recent years, and to me this is that their current DOP of choice, while being brilliant, doesn't suit them in the same way that Roger Deakins did.
If we're talking about anime directors, definitely Makoto Shinkai. He got famous worldwide for a flawed teen romantic comedy, and so he overshadowed great talents in the anime industry such as Naoko Yamada, Mamoru Hosoda, Masaaki Yuasa and Takeshi Koike. I personally believe that Shinkai is not cut out for feature films, his best works are shorter movies such as "Voices of a distant star" and "the garden of words"
And even those are clunky as hell
Hello so I’m working on a video about “what is a film critic” and since your channel has been a part of influence to my channel I was hoping if I could use your clips? Oh and JJ Abrams sucks😂
Two more things about Spielberg - first: amazing openings, terrible endings. Think Saving Private Ryan as a perfect example, but in general he tends to introduce us to charachters and plot in really interesting and engaging ways (Jaws, Indiana Jones, Jurrasic Park, obviously Saving Priavate Ryan), but close the film in the most cliche, predictable, Hollywood fashion, overdoing pathos and letting the whole philharmony go nuts in the background to shove emotions into the audience. There are some exceptions (Jaws has great ending as well as opening), but that tends to be the rule with Spielberg. And second point - I 100% agree with what You wrote about his approach to history, but there is one small exception to this rule: Munich. That's actually good and challenging movie (with a weak ending, but again... Spielberg). Maybe it's because it is about very recent history and maybe in this case Spielberg was actually interested in the subject, not just in making the movie.
I wouldn’t call the endings to most of his movies terrible but predictably wrapped in some ways, (Minority Report is one of the few exceptions). Comforting as Terry Gilliam would say in one of his videos.
Now if that is something that puts you off in a movie and you’re always after the twist, something to pleasantly surprise you, make you question stuff, then I guess his films won’t be your cup of tea. Same as many classic films from the 40s 50s and 60s (Gone With The Wind, North By Northwest, Lawrence of Arabia, A Place In The Sun, Ben Hur, etc). Spielberg is a student of that genre of classic Hollywood endings (huge fan of John Ford). And like with those films’ grande soppy endings he loves his big orchestral music, hence why he chooses John Williams for most of his work.
But all those elements do not make a film bad.
Like with all forms of story telling (books, films) there are stories designed to trigger different emotions. Not all stories need to make you ask questions, or have you puzzled at the end of them or feeling lost or uncomfortable all the time - *cough* *cough* David Lynch.
That’s why I personally love many types of filmmakers and never dismiss anyone as long as what they do they do it right. I will appreciate a Spielberg, James Cameron or a Nolan film the same way that I will a David Lynch, Kubrick a Bergman a Fellini, a Kurosawa or a Tarkovsky film. All of those are capable of triggering different parts of the brain and offer distinguished feelings and experiences each with their work. No one can replicate the other. I couldn’t live in a world with only Kubrick movies (although he is my favourite director) but also a world without Spielberg. Impossible.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with pathos and emotions exposed as long as it’s done right and Spielberg’s movies know how to touch your heart strings in various ways. Who hasn’t been touched and cried by the ending of E.T. as a kid, mesmerised by the ending of Close Encounters and left the theater looking up the night sky, emotionally destroyed by Schindler’s List, Smiled with relief at the end of Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones, Felt hopeless for humankind at the end of Munich, undeniably heartbroken at the end of A.I., the urge for more adventure at the end of Tin Tin and felt a silent relief and satisfaction at the sight of the truck’s long and painful death at the end of Duel.
As far as SPR I found the ending absolutely Hollywood classic tearjerker. There wasn’t a single dry eye in the the thrater all the way till the exit. A film that we were talking for months after its release.
Has he done turds? Absolutely (Hook, 1941, Always, BFG) And I agree that there are endings to some of his good films that left me completely unimpressed (Ready Player One, The Post, Amistad, West Side Story). But IMHO it’s the exception not the rule.
And finally keep in mind that a historical film like Lincoln for eg, there are not many ways to end it with a climax or something original especially when the story is well known. So the key is to keep the movie interesting and engaging, with good screenplay, acting, perfect cinematography and shooting craft, editing and a score that matches the story and brings out the emotions you desire. Once all those pieces fall into place the ending does not have to be groundbreaking original or twisted for the movie to leave a lasting memory.
Not all films need to be The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, Vertigo, Oldboy, Se7en, Stalker or Citizen Kane.
Sorry for the essay.
@@gpapa31 I gave you the like just for the heart and effort you put in your response (kudos to You, really nice essay :) )... even though I still disagree. I might have used too strong of a word when I wrote "terrible" and I liked some of his endings (Jaws, Indiana Jones 3, even Jurassic Park). I'm also not against happy endings per se. I like "feel good" movies, and really don't need films to be edgy, or "artistic". It's just that for my money his endings are genuinly not very interesting and often seem looonger than needed. It's all matter of taste obviously. And as my experience with SPR I remember watching it in the cinema and people didn't seem to be that moved by the ending, but that might be because I watched it in my hometown in Poland and patriotic film like that just doesn't hit as close to home if it is not about your homeland (or maybe there were only heartless monsters/bored,cynical proffesional NY critics in the audience ;) ). I also happened to like 1941 - but maybe that's because I saw it as a kid.
@@jbolanowski1 you summed it up profoundly in one sentence Jakub, “it’s all a matter of taste…”
Schindler's List wasn't challenging? That didn't feel like anything made in Hollywood before.
Note, I actually paused this video to leave these various comments so I didn't know Ridley Scott would be on this list. My God I agree on him. Let me count the ways. This guy is like the Meryl Streep of directors. He hasn't done anything truly groundbreaking in decades and yet everyone talks about him like he's fucking Fellini. He works with big studios...he kowtows to big studios. If you want innovation; if you want a cinematic vision; if you want something INTERESTING...Ridley Scott movies are not where you will find it. If you want Lady Gaga playing "funny accent" and Matt Damon playing dress-up...Ridley Scott is your man! Great video Maggie.
I am not sure you have to be ground breaking to be a great film maker. If you master your craft to the Nth degree. Work very well with actors and get lucky every once in a while with your material... I think you're ahead of the game. Scott is appreciated for all the right reasons. He can balance epic and personal. He can generally pace a story out and elicit good performances (sometimes great ones) from actors. He has the good taste of working with competent writers who sometimes produce very good screenplays. His visual sense is excellent and SOMETIMES PERFECT. He is arrogant, which sometimes works against him. (His refusal to bend on Prometheus was his undoing.
He seems like the Stephen King of directors. Someone that thinks having a constant output, regardless of quality, is what is important. Nothing King has written in the last 20 years comes close to what he did in the 70's & 80's.
@@filmbuff2777 Couldn't agree more. And I say that as an elementary school student who, after not being allowed to check out King's books myself while on a 5th grade trip to the library, had my mom go back to the library (with me grinning next to her) and check them out for me. The librarian was horrified. This was around 1990 or so. Wish he still wrote books that inspire that level of dedication.
For me, Steven Spielberg shares a problem with Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood - sentimentality underscores everything that they do. I do want to give the former credit for directing what I think is the only Oscar worthy performance of Tom Hanks' career in "Saving Private Ryan."
2:24 I have a couple of issues with Spielberg; however, it’s ironic you say he keeps history at a distance, when the Omaha Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan was the most realistic battle footage I can remember. My issues? I really hate cutsie BS or when he uses obvious ploys to pull at heartstrings.
Ridley Scott is undoubtedly one who has been riding on the coattail of his first three films - but I'm still tempted to forgive him since it is arguably the greatest "debut trilogy", so to speak, of any director in this history of films. I do wonder how much the clusterf*ck that was Blade Runner's production affected him... unfortunately, he does not sound the very introspective type so we probably won't get that answer from him^^ Crankiness aside though, I still have to admire his dedication, this is a gentleman going into his eightth decade on Earth and he still shoots and produces some of the biggest productions out there. That's his undoing though, I don't doubt that he's passionated by what he does (and to his credit, he never bent over to Disney or WB) but that makes him sound desperate, as if he kept doing big, varied films in the hope that one of them will catch that magic that he had in the 1980s. Gladiator and The Martian are probably the closest he ever got to his former briliance, but they still aren't a patch on his first three. But yes, while I'm not asking him to "face his own mortality" or anything like this, what would really reignite my interest for him would be something akin to what the The Irishman was to Scorsese. For a minute I thought The Last Duel could be that but I'ver heard nothing but bad things about that film... and his upcoming Napoleon has my French nostalgic ass extremely worried xD
I am fully onboard with Ridley Scott’s remarks. It deeply saddens me because I I feel his early work is quite exceptional and defined my childhood - Alien (masterpiece and the film that defined the sci-fi horror genre), Blade Runner (sci-fi futuristic dystopian masterpiece that defined the cyberpunk era), Thelma and Louise, Blackhawk Down (one of the best war movies ever made), 1492 (way underrated film), Kingdom of Heaven. Anything past that is forgettable.
Note: Yes, Gladiator is way overrated as a movie. I remember thinking of that then when I first watched it let alone now. But the score by Zimmer is mesmerising.
Gladiator is terrible. Glad you showed some love for Black Hawk Down. American Gangster is also fairly decent, if uninspired. It's a got a great Denzel performance and somehow made Cuba Gooding Jr. good again! But anyone could have directed that movie. Never saw 1492 or Kingdom of Heaven, the latter I heard was bad and there are multiple versions which is confusing. Not sure which to watch. Any tips?
@@jimmyblaze4097 I only saw the theatrical version at the cinema and personally loved it. I think it’s a great film showing the crusades and how Jerusalem was lost. Obviously there are some historical inaccuracies like with most Hollywood movies but pretty much the film is beautifully done. The Last Duel (also great film) gave me first act Kingdom Of Heaven vibes.
As far as Gladiator goes, I remember me and my dad were laughing in the cinema during the scene where he rides from Vindobona in Austria to his place in Tuscany in an attempt to save his family. And he goes through some landscape that felt more like the Grand Canyon and Arizona rather than north Italy and he does that all in one day, from the cold region of Austria to Tuscany. 😂
At that point we knew were there for a real “treat”.
Ah yes, my favorite war movie Thelma and Louise
Matchstick Men is a great underrated comedy by him. But I heard 1492 really cleaned up the characters and real story
She doesn’t like Hans Zimmer
@@blackswan4486 good for her. I think he is a great film composer. Is he up there with Morricone, Williams, Barry, Steiner and Hermann? No but he is a really good one and has done some exceptional work the last 20-30 years, some are repetitive, but the good ones are iconic.
10:17 " I think Harmony Korine is one of those people I appreciate because he doesn't give a shit"
but he sells turds in mason jars to art aficionados so he does give shits
I wish she would elaborate more on why she likes films that make her fall or almost fall asleep... what is it that you find appealing about a film like that? I think I know what she's talking about... but would love to hear more from her
Have to disagree about Spielberg keeping history at a distance with Schindler's List--he got his camera right in there and showed oodles of explicit gore. Now there was an initial release version of Schindler's List that I saw that had a few extra gory shots which Spielberg cut out to arrive at this final version we saw. Most notably is a moment during the liquidation of the Kracow ghetto, after the German soldier shoots the kid, a Jewish man screams "YOU BASTARD!" and he receives a Luger shot to the head, his skull fracturing and the blood just peeing out. Spielberg in his artistic conservatism apparently thought he went too far there and he cut that shot out.
I understand that you want to interact with your subscribers and discuss their selections, but for videos like this I do wish you’d spend maybe half the time talking about YOUR OWN list of “overrated directors” (or in any other video, your own list of movies/directors/actors/etc for the given topic of the video).
I like her to do that too but maybe let her do her own thing
Im glad i waited to see both Get Out and Us until after the hype died down. I bought Get Out, Us, and Parasite at the same time, all really good.
Get Out was good, made me laugh many times.
Us was great, made me laugh only 2-3 times but every time I did it was with gusto.
Parasite was phenomenal and I don’t think I laughed once the entire time because I was in a bit of shock & disgust.
Good description of Us. It was legitimately tense the entire film but a few moments had me laughing out loud, like thr scene where the family is arguing over who has the most kills 😂😂😂
I can only assume the well deserved praise he received for his first two films is a result of folks going against the grain. I dont see how anyone could say Get Out was anything but very good and Us, though not perfect, was extremely interesting and massively ambitious.
I don't really get the Spielberg hate. He's put out tons of fun popcorn movies, which serve their purpose. For example, I love find dining, but sometimes I'm just in the mood for an Arby's beef and cheddar. Spielberg is that beef and cheddar, and he always brings just enough Arby's sauce.
Because it sounds cool to say that Spielberg is a hack, it makes you look that you understand cinema at a “deeper level”. Give in to elitism!! 😆
Like it’s impossible to like a Tarkovsky or a Kurosawa film and a Spielberg film at the same time.
Thankfully I never had those pretentious pseudo-arthouse snobbery issues.
My favourite filmmakers include Spielberg, Cameron, Fincher, Nolan, Villeneuve as much as Fellini, Bertolucci, Goddard, Kubrick, Kurosawa and Tarkovsky. Like novelists they bring different feelings different experiences. Spielberg cannot make a Kubrick film and Kubrick cannot make a Spielberg film. And guess what? I wouldn’t want them to. That’s why I love em both.
Spielberg never met a shallow cliche he didn't love.
But hey !
that's entertainment !
Since Ridley Scott's on the discussion-menu, here's some unsolicited opinion-bait: I hated The Counselor as much as everyone else did on first viewing but, on a whim of morbid and bewildered curiosity that I cannot justify in hindsight, I decided to watch it again. Second time I saw the "Unrated Extended Cut". And I actually thought it was kinda rad.
Fair: the story is rigidly bleak and both versions are belligerent, pretentious, and unwieldy. McCarthy's florid neo-biblical American makes for pages of dialogue so rich and dense you could choke on it - this is not how we're used to movie characters speaking. Add to this the fact that nobody is likable - even the most sympathetic character is too perfectly innocent to truly "like" - and the actors have their work cut out for them. Scott stages and shoots it all with his usual top-shelf studio polish... And that was half the problem with the original, theatrical cut. Scott's emphatically commercial sensibility seemed an appallingly wrongheaded match for McCarthy's (emphatically uncommercial) grim, talky moral fable in neo-noir drag. As one critic put it "each seems to love what the other hates."
In the extended cut, I could hear a harmony between its disparate authorial voices much more clearly, though it's hard to articulate in words. For a film that originally felt interminably overlong, the longer version felt About Right, most of the extra run-time simply giving breathing room to the extant material (while the few entirely "new scenes" which appear are the dullest, and probably deserved the cull). And that's the thing: given time to unfurl at a more appropriate pace, all that talk starts to sing. You can hear what McCarthy's doing, or at least what he's trying to do. It's still awkward and pompous but it's also a rarefied pleasure when it works. And it sets a mood that is deliberately *not* pulpy-realist but pulpy-mythic. Knowing how the story would play out made the whole film much more potent and chilling for me. I honestly believe it's meant to be funny, too - how funny, though, is tough to say.
Biggest surprise was my second take on Diaz's infamous love scene with a car. First time, I was embarrassed for the actor, and figured McCarthy and Scott both had a spell of the Old Mansies when they decided to do it. Second time, Diaz owned that scene like a boss, and I could see the balancing act between horror, comedy, and (I'll say it) genuine eroticism more clearly. I don't know if this was just because I'd been primed by seeing the movie before, or because the longer version creates a different context getting there. Either way, I don't hate it anymore: where I first read it as straight-up misogyny at the female characters' (and actors') expense, second time the joke was absolutely on the scared men-children sharing the story with such stammering incredulity. The bullshit Madonna/Whore dichotomy that underpins so many male insecurities gets a satirical skewering here; in other places, well, it's indulged uncritically.
The theatrical cut felt hollow because chopped to resemble a commercial thriller as closely as possible (not very closely), The Counselor made no sense (tonally, stylistically, structurally, philosophically). In the editing suite, Scott second-guessed the script, he second-guessed himself, he second-guessed the audience. It was a mistake (as was the choice of music score - just awful). I have a feeling the longer version, had it been released instead, would still have pissed off half the audience, but secured more cult followers from the gate too. I might've been one of them.
The catfish scene, lol 🍻
I‘m very split on Ridley Scott, as I completely understand and often agree on the general consensus, but also never end up completely hating any of his works. There’s great stuff in almost all of his films (to varying degrees).
Even a film like Exodus which couldn’t be more dull in relation to its super large epic scale, has Ridley taking full delight in wrecking havoc on Egyptian folk for about ten minutes. Sadly, for every chillingly genocidal Michael Fassbender Dr. Frankenstein/Peter O‘Toole android, there’s also Brad Pitt rambling on forever Cormac McCarthy speak that doesn’t really translate all that well to screen.
If there’s one film of his that’s more than perfectly fine and kind of never mentioned, then it’s probably Matchstick Men. Great Cage, some good supporting players, characters that don’t feel hollow and a regular con-man movie script that gets the job done. Probably one of his least ambitious works and ironically also one of his best.
Regarding his borderline workaholic 2021 output I feel Ridley. I would also be pissed if my big, too long and somewhat flawed best film in a long time bombs epically, gets shoved in the Disney+ dumpster early, all the while my clownish unfunny farce reeking of cioccolato smerdato kind of takes off because of the Lady Gaga we stan a homicidal queen type audience.
I love Ridley and hope disillusioned executives continue throwing money to his feet till the day he dies.
Whenever Spielberg does his grown-up child thing, he is a very ordinary, visually gifted director. But when he decides to get serious: Jaws, Schindler's List, Save the private Ryan, Munich, then he becomes a "scary" director. In fact, one of the best ever!!
I can agree about D. Villeneuve - nothing special there. As for Ridley Scott, I have a sort of adoration towards the man and his filmmaking, so only great things to say about him.
I always thought Russell Crowe won the Oscar to make up for the Insider the year before. His performance was so much better in the "Insider" versus "Gladiator"
To say that about Ridley Scott is to ignore stuff like The Martian, which is one of the best popular Sci-Fi movies of the last ten years. I wouldn't write off Ridley Scott because he made a couple of so-so films like The Councilor. As far as Steven Spielberg... You can't overrate a guy whose technical craft has reached that level. You can fault him for his choices of material being conservative (The Post?) but he's still the director I grew up with. Bridge Of Spies is a marvel. TinTin is a tour de force of animation. You've mostly cited movies from the 1970s and 1980s. Those are decades that were elevated in terms of film making for having had Spielberg working in them. Traditional and conservative? YES. He has modelled his film making after that of David Lean and Akira Kurosawa in many ways. He sees himself as a traditional story teller who happens to usse the medium of film. For daring, look elsewhere. I love Villeneuve's sense of humor. Check out Maelstrom. A story narrated by a fish.
The Martian might be highly acclaimed, but what about junk like his pretentious Alien prequels, Hannibal, & that Exodus rubbish?
I love vampyr a lot I never fall asleep watching it I agree with you deepfocus
Would you consider 1917 as a good example of a war movie that pulled you into the situation?
John Ford. Just joking he’s still underrated. Sorry, Tarantino. Controversial? Yes. Unpopular? Extremely. It is, he is, a difficult subject. I personally find much of the sentiment portrayed and sometimes glorified in his films repugnant, and I don’t think anyone should seek to ignore those many instances. My own attitude, at times, has been one of hatred toward that certain ideal often expressed in his work that Tarantino and others have justly attacked and rightly deplored. But can I really deny the love that I truly have for much of what he made? Seriously? This isn’t the old art vs artist separation problem. It’s the art itself that needs separating. Maybe a more selective appraisal can save him. Just take three examples. The informer, The grapes of wrath, How green was my valley. These are the works of an artist of the absolute highest order. His vast and eclectic output is reflective of the depth and complexity of his own character, a character that is not always admirable or sympathetic but one that is deeply passionate and completely devoted to its art.
Ford is underrated, I agree his films are full of elements that may seem off putting or hokey to certain modern viewers but he has a massive body of work filled with lesser known and offbeat films. I’d add Wagonmaster and The Sun Shines Bright to the list of lesser known Ford films. Also the book on Ford by Tag Gallagher is one of the best breakdowns of any director, absolutely worth seeking.
@@Bigfrank88 Thanks for the recommendation! I haven’t heard of it and I’ll definitely be getting a copy.
Most of what people see as being overrated is down to personal preference, but I get it. Villeneuve, for example, is a director whose film I find highly accomplished in terms of cinematography, editing and direction, but ultimately some of the most boring films I have ever seen (except for Prisoners, excellent film).
I've also never been a fan of Ari Aster's films so far. I know people rate the guy highly but I just didn't gel with Hereditary or Midsomar.
Denis did a few gems before BR2049. Sicario was awesome. but, I have a feeling he's going to be a letdown after Rendezvous with Rama. I agree with you about Ari Aster. Hereditary and Midsomar was just plain stupid movies that I got mad at for sucking so bad.
Villeneuve IS a genius who makes beautiful (especially the sound), slow and little bit boring and very expensive art movies. And Riddle Scott made recently very good The Last Duel.
The problem with this whole discussion is that directors are craftsmen and artists, not products. They have their highs and lows. They have difficult times in their lives and good times that affect their output. When you use the word 'rated' as in over or under, you can forget you are talking about human beings. Some of their films have a greater impact than intended and some miss the mark. Some have commercial success (sometimes wild success) and are very popular. Some are critical darlings. All of that is out of the control of the director. Only history will tell if a director achieves the level of 'ratedness' that they desereve. Is Hitchcock overrated? Can you quantify or measure the impact his life had on the historical record or on his craft? Is he still influential in 2021?
you could’ve shortened “i don’t like this video topic” and moved on
@@unmixedunmastered2810 you could have not commented on it and moved on. Minding your own business is a thing
@@appleipadcrazy If someone says something publicly it's in everyone's right to make it their bussines also
@@unmixedunmastered2810 just like I did?? Lol. You are making a joke of yourself now.
Fellini, Lars Von Trier & Polanski are up there for me
Specially LVT for me holy shit
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Spielberg's best movies are Jaws and Jurassic Park. After the dust has settled, those appear to me to be his biggest peaks.
so...Denis did two films I love. BR2049 and Dune. I HATED the arrival. Ridley Scott has been a favorite of mine up until gi jane. then he had a few here and there I liked I loved kingdom of heaven and the Martian and black hawk down, but he became uneven. and Prometheus was awful. Spielberg is just fantastic. I don't like ET and didn't as a child, but most of his movies are great. I think he is often overlooked because he is like the baseline for modern directors being good or bad. Like "Spielberg-level director" or not. I mean, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, Schindler's list, saving private Ryan, Munich. Wow. I really do prefer artsy and edgy directors, but Spielberg can go pretty dark and edgy (War of the Worlds, Temple of Doom, Schindler and Private Ryan). He can also do pure fluff and make it awesome (Catch me if you can, Hook, 1941). The man knows how to pace a movie. He knows characters. He is such a part of pop culture that maybe he spoiled his own relevance with the accolades.
But if I had to choose between David Fincher and Dennis as directors I would go with Fincher, I love his movies,seven is one of my favorite films
Zodiac also!
@@gpapa31 zodiac to me was dragging a lot ,I couldn't connect
@@freshoftheoven965 yes I fully get it, it’s not for every one. Technically is a much better crafted film than Se7en. Se7en is one of the best crime investigation thriller made Hollywood style, desk work, researching but also gun fights, chasing and action. Makes it more interesting for the masses . Zodiac on the other hand is probably the best procedural crime investigation film ever made. It depicts how real-life investigation unfolds. And unfortunately is not rooftop chases and gunfights. It’s mostly a LOT of research, bureaucracy, communication issues between people, paperwork, interviews and a very very small bit of crime action. Unfortunately it is not very cinematic and many people can be bored of a two and a half hour film of phone conversation, office dialogue and people flicking through paperwork. Personally I consider Zodiac his masterpiece.
@@gpapa31 yeah exactly and I i feel the same way about alien 3,a lot of people didn't like it because it was different but I personally liked it a lot and for some reason Fincher doesn't want to take credit for directing that film
@@freshoftheoven965 the reason Fincher does not want to take credit for Alien 3 is because he had a vision for the film that he was not allowed by the studio and production team to materialise. So although his name is on the credits as the Director the film feels foreign to him, rightly so.
Do I think it’s a bad film? No not at all. But its definitely not close to Alien and Aliens and not one of Fincher’s great works. That’s my opinion obviously.
To be fair to Wiggly Scott. He made Matchstick Men, which I thought was super underrated and has maybe one of Nick Cage's best performances.
But.. Yeahhh.
For a director who can draw the writers and actors that he can. With his body of work.. He's not great.
Ridley Scott is one of those directors whose films are only as good as the creatives he hires ... If he listens to them and trusts them to do their work. He's an incredible visualist, though. He's never made an ugly film. And he's never made a film that wasn't technically accomplished.
In the past, I felt like he used to trust his creatives more, especially his screenwriters. But I guess over the years he wanted to have more input into the stories he told, and that's where he's typically fked things up.
He's a terrible storyteller. I've noticed this, listening to interviews with him on various behind the scenes videos. He talks about streamlining his stories, but when you actually think about it and look at the results, he's just hacking into them to create the formula that sells.
Look at Alien Covenant, which took out all of the scenes of characterisation and put them on CZcams instead. Why? Streamlining. I challenge anybody to tell me the names of those crew members.
I've often thought that when he was young, he looked at the success his brother Tony was having, making big budget crowd-pleasers, any thought, I want some of that. And that's ultimately where he went.
Everytime I see a news story about Ridley Scott revisiting Alien or Blade runner, but especially Blade runner, I get a minor panic attack. And is also going on this religious bent at the moment. If he wants to make stories about finding faith and god, he can do it with a new film. Please.
Well, if we're only talking about "directing", then Ridley Scott is almost always a great director. Almost all of his movies are well directed and look amazing. But he's not really an "auteur director" like a Scorsese or a Hitchcock. Even if in the end his name is at the top of the movie posters he is often "only" the director of average scripts that he can't save even with all his talent. But the shots are splendid, he always gather a great crew of talents around him to deliver the best possible version of the script. He's a great "doer", a great artisan of cinema, just not a great artist that can turn mud into gold. But when he works on good material, oh boy, the reslut is amazing. That said, we'll not agree on Gladiator. That movie is great to me. Great pacing, great action, great performances and... great directing.
I have a large film library. It has a directors section, among the categories. Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Hitchcock are all there. I do not put Spielberg up there though, because he doesn't really have a vision. He has become the very template of a Hollywood director. Oddly enough I do put M. Night Shyamalan there. Go figure.
Tarantino
Agreed
He’s not bad, but he’s a bit of a one trick pony at this point.
Calling Dreyer overrated is absolutely ludicrous. Vampyr and Gertrud alone would be enough to make him one of the greatest. Jordan Peele is utterly worthless and obviously famous for political reasons alone.
Day of Wrath is also excellent.
Paul Thomas Anderson. (See Licorice Pizza) meandering flat plot twists, miscasting of Hoffman, should have been the other child actor who has dinner with Haim family. That kid steals every scene. Lance Oppenheim completely F’d up Some Kind of Heaven.
Highly disagree on the Ridley Scott comment. While I do think his films can be hit and miss, often reliant on how solid the screenplay is, Scott has made some really underrated films, not referring to the masterpieces Alien, Blade Runner, and, to a much lesser extent, Gladiator, but, for example, I absolutely adore Matchstick Men. One of my favorite crime comedy /dramas in the last couple decades. The Last Duel, The Martian, Thelma and Louise, American Gangster, and Black Hawk Down are also excellent. Hell, Prometheus is a mess, and in sore need of a directors cut to fix the theatrical edit, but I still guiltily enjoy the atmosphere, visuals, and performances in that one. Scott can be all over the place at times, but I feel people tend to write many of his movies off unfairly these days.
Lincoln was a masterpiece