comment #1

COCO says ...

Now the summer is here....Nolan rules and we have a reason to sing. A visual feast and intelligent film to enjoy.

comment #2

Colin says ...

I don't want to read the review if there are spoilers. Anyone help me out?

comment #3

coxcable says ...

Nolan's problem is that he's really heavyhanded and takes himself way too seriously. Same with Shyamalan. Both directors have styles that suggest Hitchcock, but The Master always had fun first. And he knew what real fun was.

But Faraci didn't like the overrated The Dark Knight, right?

So -- and I'm being serious here -- he does have some credibility with me.

(I'm not readying any review this week longer than four or five paragraphs)

comment #4

Jonathan Spuij says ...

Fun is for the other crappy movies during summer. Nolan simply drops the fun but adds intelligence.

comment #5

austin111 says ...

I want to see it, good or bad. That's all I can say right now. My interest is peaked.

comment #6

erniesouchak says ...

Someone whose last film made that much money couldn't possibly be a mediocrity, could he?

comment #7

Ponderer says ...

"But Faraci didn't like the overrated The Dark Knight, right?"

He was fine with it - he just thought it had major problems and was very overrated.

comment #8

Sams says ...

Money isn't the appropriate yardstick or Michael Bay will be up there. But Nolan hasn't delivered a poorly rated film regardless of box office.

comment #9

Matt Holmes says ...

I'm loving Ebert's tweet from 20 mins ago, but I just don't see how he can doubt that Inception is really the most significant cerebral blockbuster since The Matrix.

http://twitter.com/EBERTCHICAGO

comment #10

Matt Holmes says ...

Would help if I actually copied the tweet itself...

"If Nolan's "Inception" is even half as good as Anne Thompson says it is, I'll be gob-smacked".

Can he really be doubting Nolan at this point?

comment #11

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

not to hijack or anything, but Jeff might want to know that Marty Feldman's "In God We Tru$t", which he wrote about recently, is making a rare cable appearance in about a half-hour on (of all places) HBO's Family channel. Can't wait.

comment #12

Markj74 says ...

Inception looks terrific. Though I doubt it's a "masterpiece" as Faraci says, or a "Kubrickian masterpiece", as Anne says... that sounds like typical film critic hyperbole to me.

comment #13

fredderf says ...

'C'mon, let's get on with it!' is what I was shouting during "The Dark Knight".

UGH. Please let it be not so.

comment #14

Sams says ...

To get a taste of an opposing view, here's Comingsoon.net's not so glowing review: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=67539

comment #15

Matt Holmes says ...

Not that I've seen Inception yet markj, but there were those who scoffed at Citizen Kane as being good but no masterpiece, and Kubrick's own 2001 as not being all that upon their initial releases.

If they aren't masterpieces I don't know what are?

I don't see why anyone doubts Nolan at this point but I guess every director sucking air and every working auteur has to undergo this and their legacy are never truly appreciated until they are long gone, or their prime years firmly behind them.

Who is to doubt Inception isn't Nolan's masterpiece? There's nothing about the movie anywhere that should give people doubts or concerns over it's merits.

comment #16

Jack South P.I. says ...

Wonder if Nolan is going to get his Oscar for the Inception screenplay. Been getting a Tarantino/Pulp Fiction kinda vibe here: the movie is too good and too smart for the average moviegoer (so no Best Picture) but too good to be ignored.

comment #17

Thunderballs says ...

The more these gushing reviews come in, the less inclined I am to think this film will be equal to those raves. Nolan has yet to make one good film, so I will go in with a wary eye, considering he has never delivered the goods in any of his movies, and it stars Leo DiCaprio, who never heard of the words "over acting."

I hope this movie is good, but after The Dark Knight, I have some serious doubts.

comment #18

MilkMan says ...

Nolan is a mediocrity. He couldn't make a Kubrickian style film is you transplanted Kubrick's brain into his skull. And anyone who carries around a pair of bi-focals as a prop is immediately suspect. Memento was good solid genre filmmaking, everything since then has been throughly underwhelming. TDK was fine, but to me, at least, it doesn't point towards Nolan being capable a film as good as Spielberg, let alone Kubrick. Nolan reminds me of a classier John McTiernan, or, at his best, maybe Ridley Scott.

comment #19

nightheat says ...

Anything that gas-bag Mcweeny gushes over is suspect. Probably won't be viewing this anyhow. Nolan doesn't strike me as a genuine auteur. He should probably only be making Batman films his entire life. The Dark Knight.. yeah its good, but its good in comparison to other comic book films.

comment #20

Ray DeRousse says ...

It's very easy to get swept up in the emotion of a big, heavily-favored blockbuster and deliver a salivating, over-the-top review. Most reviewers were swept into a frenzy over The Dark Knight in the weeks leading up to release, declaring it a "masterpiece" and such ... but while it's a very good film, it's no masterpiece.

Out of the early reviews, I liked Devin Faraci's the best because he could actually articulate the specifics of WHY he loved it so much, rather than simply bandy the word "masterpiece" around and expect it to have meaning. It gives me hope among all the hype.

But let's try to show some restraint, shall we?

comment #21

MilkMan says ...

Actually, fuck that nonsense. Nolan strikes me as a Michael Mann-que. And I'll take him seriously as a filmmaker when film writers I respect take him seriously.

comment #22

Yuval says ...

I want to say, I loved Before Sunset and I want to love Inception. Just read Jonathan Rosenbaum's Before Sunset review. Anyway, Nolan has made 2 great films, 1 masterpiece and 2 good films. That's a little under Paul Thomas Anderson and Michel Gondry, and a lttle over Quentin Tarantino. That's my opinion anyway. He's definitely going on my Andrew Sarris style auteur book

comment #23

crazynine says ...

I'm going to pretend that Thunderballs and Milkman don't exist ;-).

Nolan hasn't made a bad film. He's in fact made some GREAT films. I'll accept matters of taste as a difference in opinion, but factually, no one can deny the man's talent for film.

To everyone who rails against The Dark Knight, I remind them: Nolan made a classic film... from Batman. The raw material was a freakin' comic book. And I'm not one to denigrate comics as an art form, but it's not like it was Shakespeare or the Book of Exodus.

I'm reminded of the George Lucas (apocryphal?) quote to Irvin Kirshner upon seeing The Empire Strikes Back for the first time-- "Did you have to make it so good?"

Nolan never had to make TDK anything more than a comic book film, and yet turned in a compelling drama that works *outside* of the guy with the mask (sure, Ledger steals the movie, and without him it wouldn't have been the same... but as long as we're talking Kubrick comparisons, The Shining wouldn't have been the same without Nicholson, either-- great directors know the talent their working with).

Anyway, whether it's any good or not, the best thing about Inception-- the single undeniable best thing-- is that Nolan made an *original* film.

comment #24

MilkMan says ...

Insomnia sucked balls. And I swear I will never, ever understand what people are talking about when it comes to TDK. I just don't get it. At all.

comment #25

phantasmata says ...

"And I'll take him seriously as a filmmaker when film writers I respect take him seriously."

in other words, when other people tell you how to think. okay. that's kind of . . . pathetic. well, not "kind of"--it *is*. and seriously, spielberg? name *one* spielberg movie w/ a fraction of the complexity of memento or even TDK. spielberg is a a boy scout w/ a beard w/ a woefully simplified view of the world. nolan is a guy who makes a comic book movie and not only allows the villain to be charismatic, but doesn't invalidate him, either. it's like what gordon says at the end of TDK: "the joker was right." and he and batman have to collude and deceive gotham because the *joker was right.* how many fucking movies do that? the joker may be a nihilist, but nolan doesn't take the easy route and try to prove nihilism is wrong. unlike spielberg, where the bad guys are bad, the good guys are good, and good always prevail. that's a child's view of the world and i guess that's why people like you are fans.

comment #26

Yuval says ...

Milkman, I can see how Insomnia can appear to have sucked balls, but it has many redeeming qualities that elevate it to "good" in my eyes.
And The Dark Knight definitely has its problems, I don't think it comes close to Masterpiece, but Batman Begins did, almost.

comment #27

Thunderballs says ...

I take offense to comparing Nolan to Michael Mann. Mann is a great writer and a great visualist, two things Nolan is not. Mann knows how to shoot a coherent action scene, Nolan, as evidenced by the Batman films, does not.

Mainly though, Nolan has no point of view. He is simply a competent studio hack, nothing more.

Memento was a stunt, and after the first 20 minutes was a borefest. Insomnia was a remake, and not very good at all. Batman Begins had its moments, but was largely a failure. The Prestige? It looked good, but again, was not interesting. It had god ideas, but had no clue how to use them effectively or dramatically.

The Dark Knight had some great ideas, namely, returning Joker to his maniacal roots and making him a dark villain. Also, the idea that the people of Gotham would start dressing like Batman was pretty genius, yet Nolan did NOTHING with the concept after the opening Batman scene. This is Nolan's problem, he or his brother come up with some solid ideas and are CLUELESS as to how to integrate them into a narrative.

Not that this is a great idea, but how much better would it have been if the Joker was behind some of the fake Batmen, creating chaos on the streets and making the public doubt Batman? It at least would have integrated an interesting idea into the whole movie instead of being an afterthought.

And what was up with the last hour of TDK? The Joker's final plan was TERRIBLE! The two boats? Seriously? AWFUL. And it surely was not aided by the terrible casting throughout the film, but particularly in that sequence with the cops and the bald dude who wants to blow up the convicts. There are seriously people who defend this ending? Or the stupid Bat-vision shit where Batman has those goggles? Or the ridiculously fast conversion of Two Face into a criminal? Why not save him for the third movie and make it mean something? The movie was a bloated mess with some very interesting ideas that went nowhere. A masterpiece? Maybe if you're 14 years old.

And judging from the early reviews of Inception, it seems to suffer from that same fate. Namely, interesting ideas that go nowhere and don't cohere into an interesting whole.

Every time I see Ellen Page I think it is a new commercial for Cisco or something.

Nolan can't write, and he really can't cast. His films are always populated by some really bad actors and the occasional good actor. TDK is the worst offender though, the casting is uniformly atrocious for all the secondary characters throughout.

comment #28

Thunderballs says ...

And for the record, Spielberg sucks ass. Most overrated director ever.

comment #29

moviechick44 says ...

Well, at least this is an original concept. That's got me interested mostly. It took Nolan 9 years to write Inception.
Now you have to give the guy props for having that come out of his brain. At least it's not a remake, reboot or sequel.
Nice to see something original now and then.

comment #30

Sams says ...

This staggered review release looks a bit messy not to mention unfair. Obviously Warner did not think this through. The studio is risking a backlash from all the critics who are twiddling their thumbs while those on the west coast are handed on early scoop. Why the rush to get those reviews on line so early? Is there a story here?

comment #31

Eloi Wrath says ...

"The studio is risking a backlash from all the critics who are twiddling their thumbs while those on the west coast are handed on early scoop."

If the critics are that petty, they don't deserve to be watching it early.

comment #32

bootsy says ...

Milkman and Thunderballs, Nolan must have pissed in your cereal or something. You two sound like certified haters. Nolan is probably the best thing going right now. He hasn't made a bad movie and his worst, Insomnia is still good.

comment #33

HanekeFanBoyNumberOne says ...

Thunderballs, you nailed my TDK sentiments, but Spielberg being overrated? You go make Jaws and then tell me if he's overrated.

comment #34

DeeZee says ...

Jack South: " Been getting a Tarantino/Pulp Fiction kinda vibe here: the movie is too good and too smart for the average moviegoer (so no Best Picture) "

If PF weren't another remake, sure. Hopefully, Inception will be different enough from Paprika, though, to make a difference.

Milkman: I was ok with TDK, but damn did that thing suffer from the weight of a bloated running time. That Joker boat thing in particular felt absolutely unnecessary, especially since it was predictable as hell.

Thunderballs: Yeah, I thought the whole fake Batman thing was a lot more interesting than the crimes we did get with the Joker. Anyway, I don't think Spielberg sucks, but I will agree with overrated.

movie: "Well, at least this is an original concept. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er5QG_AkspU&playnext_from=TL&videos=-13DvsruONo

comment #35

DeeZee says ...

Actually, now that I think about it, even the Rachel getting killed scene was predictable as hell. Seriously, for a movie as gritty as TDK's supposed to be, it feels like the stakes are lower than they were in BB.

comment #36

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

"Anyway, Nolan has made 2 great films, 1 masterpiece and 2 good films. That's a little under Paul Thomas Anderson and Michel Gondry, and a lttle over Quentin Tarantino."

I think you're underrating QT here something fierce (I don't want to acknowledge a world that doesn't consider JB and IB masterpieces), but I'm a big fan so I digress on that point.

I guess my question to you is -- what is your breakdown on Michel Gondry that you're ranking him so favorably? Look, I'm totally onboard with the notion of TESotSM as a masterpiece, and I'm as big a fan of his videos (esp. the White Stripes ones) as anyone, but it's hard for me to take you seriously when you make a statement like this. Out of Human Nature, Block Party, Science of Sleep, and Be Kind Rewind which ones do you feel actually transcend being merely "good" (let alone mediocre)?

comment #37

creepingmalaise says ...

Poland wrote today: "I skipped the Friday screening because I had plans with friends from out of town and was already scheduled to see it this Wednesday"

Jeff--you don't get to see it until July 13 and Poland had a chance to see it last Friday, passed, and is set for another screeming this Wednesday???

Are you THAT far down the shithole with Warner Brothers or is Poland blowing smoke?

comment #38

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

"unlike spielberg, where the bad guys are bad, the good guys are good, and good always prevail. that's a child's view of the world and i guess that's why people like you are fans."

Wow, talk about painting with a broad brush! You know, if you would have made this statement about 20 years ago -- or maybe even 10, save Schindler's List -- I probably would have agreed with you (which is not to say that this isn't a legitimate form of filmmaking). But over the last decade, if anything, Spielberg has been incredibly underrated, IMHO.

Even if you don't consider his recent string of films "great," you have to at least acknowledge that there isn't too much of his "black hat-white hat" nonsense going on in A.I., Munich, and Minority Report. I'd even argue that Catch Me If You Can and War of the Worlds -- which are admittedly more straightforward narratives -- still contain a surprising amount of grey area in the subtext, if you're willing to dig even a little bit.

comment #39

Yuval says ...

CitizenKaned

Don't take that rating too seriously. but I consider Human Nature and Science of Sleep to be near-masterpieces of full masterpieces (especially the latter). I need to see Block Party again, I am positive about it, definitly not mediocre. And I'm a big Tarantino fan, I think Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown are wonderful perfect films (masterpieces), I change my mind on Pulp Fiction, some parts I like better than others, it's definitely great. And I loved Death Proof and Inglourios Basterds. But none of them come close in mind to Eternal Sunshine and Science of Sleep.

comment #40

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

"Memento was a stunt, and after the first 20 minutes was a borefest. Insomnia was a remake, and not very good at all. Batman Begins had its moments, but was largely a failure. The Prestige? It looked good, but again, was not interesting. It had god ideas, but had no clue how to use them effectively or dramatically."

Congratulations, you just dismissively slammed three excellent films (I actually think Insomnia's a pretty good remake, but I'm letting it slide due to the sheer outrageousness of your other claims) of the past decade in about the most unconvincing manner ever.

Since we're just tossing out off-the-cuff slams on acclaimed filmmakers, can I just say that Ali was dull as hell, Miami Vice was stupid, and Public Enemies looked like ass?

comment #41

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Fair enough, Yuval, thanks for clearing that up. I guess I need to see TSoS. Been meaning to check that one out for awhile, anyway. Any thoughts on The Green Hornet? Seems like a bit of a strange fit for him...

comment #42

LexG says ...

Hey, everybody, it's Bullshit O'Clock!

Did someone just say that Eternal Sunshine is a better movie than Pulp Fiction?

Get the fuck out. Eternal Sunshine doesn't even have any gunfire.

comment #43

bootsy says ...

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts, Public Enemies was ass and Ali was dull save for Will Smith. Now I am a huge fan of Vice. I hated it at first because I kept comparing it to the TV show but once I stopped doing that and saw the film without comparing it played off much better. I think it is a truly underrated film. I like Mann but he has had a lot of misses lately.

comment #44

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

"TDK is the worst offender though, the casting is uniformly atrocious for all the secondary characters throughout."

Let's see: Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Jai White, William Fichtner, Tommy Lister. Yup, sounds like a truly awful cast to me!

You. Are. Crazy.

comment #45

Yuval says ...

"Eternal Sunshine doesn't even have any gunfire."
You got me there, Lex. don't know what I was thinking.

CitizenKaned, Green Hornet's trailer looks bad, like a piece of nothing, I don't know what say about it. It's a trailer. I'm reserving judgement.

comment #46

LexG says ...

The best thing about Eternal Sunshine was Dunst bouncing around in her undies and bare feet. I mean, it's a very good/great movie, but a TOTAL one-timer that doesn't have any of the elements that beg a rewatch: it's not in Scope, it's in Spike Jonze Bore-O-Vision 1.85 with pink flesh tones and dusty colors, no nudity, no violence, no coke, no gangsters, no suspense, no Fascistic depiction of a lone man rising up to become a GOD and controlling women through his Nietzchean might.

Who sits around rewatching Eternal Sunshine? Haven't seen frame one of it since opening day in the theaters.

comment #47

Thunderballs says ...

CitizenKaned - those are mostly main characters in TDK! Why don't you try reading the post? I said the people who played the cops, and that bald dude on the boat at the end, all terrible. Gordon's wife and kid? That Spanish female cop? Terrible. The cops in the armored truck? Terrible. The gangsters at the roundtable that Joker crashes? Terrible. You're defending Michael Jai White as a good actor? And Zeus? Get the hell out of here, you've just proven you have no taste when it comes to acting if you think the casting was good in that film. Casting is a lot more than getting some name actors for the main roles. The meat of casting is in those small parts, people that are only in a scene or two. Nolan cast really bad actors in a lot of the non-showy roles.

And when it comes to films considering you think the Prestige is one of the best movies of the past decade! And you think Spielberg makes consistently good films!

And I am not a fan of Ali, but Miami Vice is easily one of the best films of the decade. WAY more complex, adult, interesting and stylish than ALL of Nolan's films combined. Public Enemies was a good, not great film, but it is still better than anything Nolan has ever done, by a long stretch. And let's not even get into Heat, Thief, The Insider, Manhunter, Mohicans... Mann is 1,000 times the filmmaker Nolan is.

Haneke - Spielberg overall is not a good director, he makes a lot of bad movies, and produces some of the worst trash ever committed to celluloid. If all his films could be of the quality of Jaws or heck, even Duel, he'd be a great director. But his output is severely lacking in terms of quality entertainment.

comment #48

bootsy says ...

Thunderballs, I think it is you who needs to learn how to read. He mentioned the bald dude on the boat at the end, Tommy Lister. It's really Tiny Lister. Those actors he mentioned none of them are main characters except Eckhart. You really were looking for great performances from the actors who played Gordon's wife/kid, the spanish female cop? Really? LOL. Man where did you learn about film from? I don't mean to get into the middle of this but some of things you are saying are way off.

comment #49

Gordn27 says ...

"the joker may be a nihilist, but nolan doesn't take the easy route and try to prove nihilism is wrong."

No, it just has characters repeat over and over that "the Joker was right" even though it MAKES NO SENSE that the characters would think that in that moment.

Let me explain the ending of 'The Dark Knight'.

First, everybody thinks The Joker is right about the boat thing (you know, the bombs he magically gets on the boats before he can know for sure what boats will be used). But he's wrong. So, he's been proven wrong. He himself has admitted he was wrong. What happens then? Oh, he had another plan, one that would prove exactly the same thing, based on exactly the same convoluted psychopathic logic, and yet this time, everybody agrees with him. "Wow, he's really got us this time. Obviously, the fact that we just ten minutes ago proved that human nature is good will mean nothing if all those criminals who hate Harvey Dent (but were still good people) find out that he's as bad as they are!"

There are so many stupid givens built into that final situation that I can't believe people defend it as a legitimately intellectual film. And the ending is going to lose a lot of its power when, at the end of the third one, everybody in town knows that Batman is a real hero.

comment #50

Gordn27 says ...

"You really were looking for great performances from the actors who played Gordon's wife/kid, the spanish female cop? Really? LOL. Man where did you learn about film from?"

So what you're saying is that a director who can get good performances out of name actors [well, not Christian-Bale-as-Batman, but the others], but can't get good performances out of actors you've never heard of, can qualify as a good actor's director? I think pointing out poor performances that he directed is pretty vital to proving that he actually isn't good at directing actors, just at hiring famous ones.

Of course, I would argue that the terrible performance Bale gives as Batman [but not as Bruce Wayne] would prove that, I don't think you need to bring Tiny Lister into this.

Also, just for a laugh, I have to point out that neither side of the argument wants to bring up Eric Roberts.

comment #51

DeeZee says ...

It's nice to know Lex agrees with me about ES being overrated.

Thunderballs: White *is* a good actor, just not very good at picking parts. See that recent Mortal Kombat test reel on Youtube and Black Dynamite.

comment #52

Bukowski20 says ...

Everybody that hates Spielberg and/or Nolan hates film. And probably hates life, too.

Fact.

comment #53

Bukowski20 says ...

And for Pulp Fiction alone QT rates higher than Gondry.

comment #54

bootsy says ...

'So what you're saying is that a director who can get good performances out of name actors [well, not Christian-Bale-as-Batman, but the others], but can't get good performances out of actors you've never heard of, can qualify as a good actor's director? I think pointing out poor performances that he directed is pretty vital to proving that he actually isn't good at directing actors, just at hiring famous ones.'

Uh no but thanks for trying to put words from my post that aren't there. Anyway. What I am saying is nothing more, nothing less. If you are looking for great performances out of very minor characters then you are really being nit-picky and I don't think any of them were bad either.

comment #55

Geoff says ...

Thunderballs, whoah about Spielberg - I'll grant you that he has made his share of bad movies and yes, AI and War of the Worlds do qualify. But as far I'm concerned, the man is in pretty rarified territory, he is one of a select few (Scorcese the other one) who has made at least ONE masterpiece each of the past four decades.

1970's - Jaws, Close Encounters
1980's - Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Color Purple
1990's - Schindler's List
2000's - Munich

He is a master and that is not to be disputed. How many others in that group, seriously? Don't give me Coppola, no way - Tetro is very debatable. You want to throw me Werner Herzog? I have not seen enough of his films to disagree, but sure, I'll give you that.

Altman? Nah, I found Gosford Park to be terribly overrated, that was his probably his last beloved film of the past decade and what did he really pull off in the '80's?

And LexG, is it possible to love Pulp Fiction and Eternal Sunshine almost equally because as far as I'm concerned, they are both the best films of their respective decades. Eternal Sunshine is the best romance of recent years - using your kind of language against you, if you didn't find Kate Winslet all kinds of hot in that movie, then you are GAY, no question.

comment #56

Gordn27 says ...

"If you are looking for great performances out of very minor characters then you are really being nit-picky"

He didn't say he wanted them to be great, now you're completely changing what was said in order to dismiss it. He said they were bad. He brought up specific performances in response to Nolan being called a great actor's director, and you dismissed the criticism entirely because the parts were too small to give great performances in. You're missing his entire point -- a great actor's director gets great performances from the one-liners, not just the stars. That the difference between a great actor's director and a great casting director.

comment #57

Gordn27 says ...

"Altman? Nah, I found Gosford Park to be terribly overrated, that was his probably his last beloved film of the past decade and what did he really pull off in the '80's?"

'Secret Honor', 'Tanner '88', 'Fool For Love', and 'Streamers'. I've also always heard uniformly great things about 'Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean Jimmy Dean', but I've never actually seen it, so I can't vouch for it.

I will admit, though, his '80's output ranges from really strong to total shit.

comment #58

Gordn27 says ...

also, not a Woody fan, Geoff?

And, if 'The Guardian' is as good as I've heard, Friedkin could make the list in a squeaker.

comment #59

bootsy says ...

'He didn't say he wanted them to be great, now you're completely changing what was said in order to dismiss it. '
Not anymore than what you were doing to me. Anyway, you go on to say 'You're missing his entire point -- a great actor's director gets great performances from the one-liners, not just the stars. That the difference between a great actor's director and a great casting director.'

So now you are saying they should be great performances. Which one is it, either you want them to be great performances or not. You are making no sense at all here.

comment #60

Geoff says ...

Robert Altman. THE LONG GOODBYE. He's a fucking genius people. Hello?

comment #61

LexG says ...

Eternal Sunshine was the FOURTH best film of 2004. Not the best.

comment #62

Gordn27 says ...

"So now you are saying they should be great performances."

Yes, a great actor's director should be able to get great performances from any actor. Naturally, this is in no way contradicting what I said -- which is that Tballs is pointing out specifically *bad* performances.

It's pretty simple; there are three distinct, personal definitions of a great actor's director. I am saying he can get a great performance from any actor. Tballs is defining it in the negative way -- saying that it isn't a person who lets small roles get away with bad performances. You're saying it's neither of those, and strongly implying (though, sure, not out and out saying, because it seems like you're just arguing out of love for Nolan) that you can't judge a director by the smaller performances in his movie at all.

Now, they're all unique and flawed, but yours certainly seems like the most flawed of the three. (Now comes the part when you say I'm not fairly representing your point, and then repeat the exact same point in the same way that led to the misunderstanding.)

comment #63

Geoff says ...

Gordon, I COMPLETELY forgot about Woody, OK - I don't know if Match Point is quite as great as every one has said, but I'll give you that.

And sorry, that is some very nitpicky shit about casting and Nolan - come on, you're holding him to a higher standard that most others.

I love most Michael Mann movies, but Diane Venora, any one??? The Inside, just bizarre miscasting in a major role - still love the movie.

Scorcese is the man, but even his best movies - Goodfellas and even Raging Bull had some weak central-casting second tier roles, watch them again.

Already stated above that Pulp Fiction was the best film of the '90's - but Angela Jones as that cab driver??? Weirdest scene of the movie, but I guess it works as exposition.

Let's not crazy with the Nolan-bashing, here, seriously - at least, he's not casting himself as major supporting characters.....

comment #64

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Okay, I'll bite. Give me the list. And it better have at least two of the following: nudity, drugs, gunfire, and a Travis Bickle/Alex DeLarge type character.

Also, what's with quasi-slamming -- let alone not re-watching -- a movie that you claim to be "only" the fourth best film of any particular year?

comment #65

bootsy says ...

'(Now comes the part when you say I'm not fairly representing your point, and then repeat the exact same point in the same way that led to the misunderstanding.)'

Actually comes the part where you contradict your self ever since you started your little rant. Tballs point is to say everything is terrible about Nolan and all of his films which really isn't much of a point. Your point is to make no sense and try to make yourself sound smarter than what you really are.

'You're saying it's neither of those, and strongly implying (though, sure, not out and out saying, because it seems like you're just arguing out of love for Nolan) that you can't judge a director by the smaller performances in his movie at all.'

No I am not saying this. I am saying that first and foremost is that none of the performances were bad. Let's just get that clear right now. Secondly, I am saying that nitpicking over minor characters is just that and nothing more. You also say I am 'arguing out of love for Nolan'. At least I know what I am arguing about because it seems you don't know.

comment #66

BurmaShave says ...

Gordon, I don't even know what to say to someone who doesn't appreciate EMPIRE OF THE SUN or WAR OF THE WORLDS and who doesn't understand it didn't matter what boats the bombs were on.

comment #67

Gordn27 says ...

"And sorry, that is some very nitpicky shit about casting and Nolan - come on, you're holding him to a higher standard that most others."

What you have to understand is, I'm nitpicking the English language, not Nolan. I personally don't feel that Nolan is a great actor's director [I see him as the opposite, much more of a technical director -- the Mann comparison is apt], but my point is, I honestly don't understand where bootsy is coming from. As far as I can tell, he's saying that it's not reasonable to criticize an "actor's director" based on the small parts in his movies.

To compare, let's take a look at an actual actor's director -- Woody Allen, but not now when he's a bit off his game, but back in, say, 1992. An out-and-out terrible movie, 'Shadows and Fog'. But *every* actor in that movie is 100% on-point. You don't even have to see it, just know a few examples:
Kurtwood Smith - random guy in mob of people
William H. Macy - Police Officer #2
John C. Reilly - i think he's a cop or something

You don't need to go back and look to know they're giving solid performances.

Again, for me personally, if I'm judging Nolan as an actor's director, I watch one minute of Bale-as-Batman, and I say, "Okay, he's got a vision, and that vision is TERRIBLE."

"I love most Michael Mann movies"

I can't really get behind Mann as a great actor's director either, but he's closer to one than Nolan. The problem is, Mann only has one default style. It was okay when he wasn't too famous, because actors like Day-Lewis or Pacino could feel free to overrule him and do their own style of performing. But now he directs everybody in the same low key manner and there's no variation to it.

"he's not casting himself as major supporting characters...."

Honestly, putting that trend aside, I think Spike Lee is a better actor's director than anybody we've brought up except for Woody (he does it too!) and maybe Scorsese (hey, wait, who's that in the backseat in 'Taxi Driver'...?).

comment #68

Gordn27 says ...

Burma - see, i know where the boat thing comes from, but if you're accusing me of not liking 'Empire of the Sun', you couldn't be further from the mark. I haven't said a word against Spielberg in this thread and, if I were going to, I certainly wouldn't start there.

As for 'War of the Worlds', I honestly think that I've expressed the most positive sentiments about this movie on this whole board, second only to Kaned. The middle hour (or so) is amazing. It just has a bad start (because Tom Cruise can't play "normal") and a worse end (because... oh, everybody knows that).

"who doesn't understand it didn't matter what boats the bombs were on. "

At least you admit that it's a plot hole and just want to dismiss it entirely, rather than trying to argue that it makes sense.

comment #69

LexG says ...

I love Dakota Fanning.

comment #70

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

And for all of those people bashing Nolan and his (in)ability to coax good performances from peripheral parts, have you guys ever seen Following?

Mesmerizing film, small cast, a couple great performances...from actors nobody had ever heard of at the time (and basically never heard from again).

If you want to call the tiny performances in TDK "uneven," that's probably not entirely inaccurate, but it's also about par for the course for a 2 hour+ plus blockbuster with a ton of speaking parts.

I was also pretty impressed with the performances he got out of Carrie Anne-Moss, Robin Williams, Ken Watanabe, and Scar-Jo in his previous movies.

(But yeah, I'm not about to go out of my way to defend either Katie Holmes or Eric Roberts. C'est la vie...not even the masters hit 1.000).

comment #71

bootsy says ...

Gordn27 , great point on Lee. When discussing actor's director he is one of the first director's that come to mind. I agree with you on that for sure. I think Nolan is an actor's director. no he isn't the best at it but not as bad as you are making it seem.

comment #72

Gordn27 says ...

"Tballs point is to say everything is terrible about Nolan and all of his films which really isn't much of a point."

And yet you felt the need to split it down to one specific point and then argue poorly against it. Who's the real fool here?

(A: Me.)

"No I am not saying this."

Okay, then you should tell the guy who's posting under your name that. Because he's made your point pretty clear when you said "LOL" to the idea that he wanted adequate performances from the smaller parts, and accused him of not knowing anything about film for saying it.

"At least I know what I am arguing about because it seems you don't know."

Well, it's pretty clear; you're starting from the POV that Nolan is great and everything about his movies is entirely above reproach. Thus, when anybody brings up anybody critical, you (as you've shown in this thread) literally can't understand their points, because they're so foreign from your point of view.

I'm just gonna throw out a guess here - 19? *maybe* 20? No way somebody has lasted through any life beyond college with blinders that thick on. No offense intended -- I was the same way when I was that young.

comment #73

Gordn27 says ...

"I think Nolan is an actor's director. no he isn't the best at it but not as bad as you are making it seem."

Honestly, I don't mean he's bad. He's fine. He doesn't get in the way of the great actors. He just doesn't get Career Best performances from no-hopers either.

It's just weird how this board has become insanely pro-Nolan. It's not enough that he's making good summer blockbuster movies; the comments have literally name-checked every great filmmaker of the past 50 years, and every great film, and of course this one is even better, and it's going to gross eleventy billion dollars (unless Everybody But Me is STUPID!) and win every Oscar (unless The Academy is JEALOUS!) and he's the best actor's director and the best writer and the best technical director and his special effects are the best...

It seems ridiculous to me, completely unrelated to the movies I've seen by him. But, at the same time, maybe on some level I'm jealous, because all of these people who have decided this in advance of seeing 'Inception' *are* going to react to it that way. How can they not? They've already decided it's the best movie of the decade.

comment #74

LexG says ...

"I'm not about to go out of my way to defend either Katie Holmes or Eric Roberts."

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.

Seriously, you will NOT slam Eric Roberts and get away with it. I don't care how much DTV shit he does, I don't care if he does BEST OF THE BEST 17, I don't care if he's the center square for six months running while plugging that godawful sitcom he did with Sara Rue and Andy Dick.

STAR 80. Watch it NOW if you haven't. It's a fucking DeNiro, Pacino, Taxi Driver, Dog Day Afternoon-level PERFORMANCE FOR THE AGES, one of the greatest film performances of the last couple decades, and the dude gets a LIFETIME PASS no matter what the fuck else he does. Add in Runaway Train, Pope of Greenwich Village, King of the Gypsies... hell, add in the fucking Specialist or Final Analysis as far as I'm concerned. Roberts is a Rourke-level acting GOD who started going for paychecks for whatever reason, but that shouldn't remotely tarnish his achievements or what he's capable of.

You will BOW to Eric Roberts.

comment #75

Gordn27 says ...

Seconded, though be sure you know what you're getting into. "Star 80" is a damned tough watch.

comment #76

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Having said all that, I'd probably have to agree that Nolan is more of a "technical director" than an actor's director.

He definitely seems more interested in moving his performers around like chess pieces to keep the deus ex machina in perpetual motion than letting deep, layered performances drive the plot.

But I do think this style fits the kinds of movies he makes. I think Nolan would make an awful version of Boogie Nights or I Heart Huckabees, but I doubt either of those guys -- genius as they are -- could direct Memento (or presumably, Inception) nearly as effectively, either.

comment #77

Gordn27 says ...

BTW, Geoff, I wasn't thinking specifically of 'Match Point' per se; I tend to lean towards the "that's just a remake of Crimes and Misdemeanors" side of that argument. I just figure, if you're a Woody Allen fan, there's at least one movie of his in the past decade that you thought was great. Maybe it's just law of averages.

comment #78

LexG says ...

He'd make a shitty Boogie Nights, because he'd be all, "Hmm, are we sure Dirk Diggler can't be a master magician in the '70s instead of a porn guy?"

Love Nolan, but as I've said before, he's one of the most asexual, least fetish-exposing directors going. Way closer to Mann in his icy, "men's men as professionals" dynamic than to Kubrick, who was a masked-orgy filming poon hound.

comment #79

Gordn27 says ...

Kaned - and yet, Chris Nolan directed an Oscar winning performance, and Robert Altman never did! Isn't that weird?

But, yeah, well said. I think the Russell comparison is interesting -- I like him because he seems to bite off more than he can chew, so he tries to do ambitiously plotty stuff that also has a lot of room for great performances.

comment #80

bootsy says ...

'And yet you felt the need to split it down to one specific point and then argue poorly against it. Who's the real fool here?'

If you have been paying attention in this forum I have been arguing against pretty much all of Tballs points, YOU just choose to focus on this one point and obsess over it.

'Okay, then you should tell the guy who's posting under your name that. Because he's made your point pretty clear when you said "LOL" to the idea that he wanted adequate performances from the smaller parts, and accused him of not knowing anything about film for saying it.'

Show me where I said I wanted adequate perfomances from smaller parts. Who, what are you talking about man? you are all over the place.

comment #81

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

I like E. Roberts just fine, Lex. I was just referring to his perf. in TDK, which I found to be slightly distracting, to be honest.

But no, I don't think he's nearly as good as Rourke. I won't even address the Pacino-DeNiro comment other than to say you have a well-documented tendency to get really out of control with your exaggerated acting analogies ("K-Stew as the next Dean, Brando," etc.).

comment #82

Geoff says ...

Gordon, we actually agree about Spike Lee - he is amazing at casting his movies and a great actor's director. He saw something in Mekhi Pfeiffer back in '95 with Clockers that apparently, no one else has really seen.

And it was good to see that he completely outgrew that habit of casting himself in movies after Summer of Sam - I mean, he could have easily written a juicy supporting role for himself as one of the hostages in Inside Man, but resisted.

comment #83

Bukowski20 says ...

"He doesn't get in the way of the great actors. He just doesn't get Career Best performances from no-hopers either."

Go back and watch movies from the first decade of work from Lee and Allen. They don't bat 1.000 either. And they were making films on a smaller scale, where they could spend more time working with individual actors.

"It's just weird how this board has become insanely pro-Nolan. "

Yeah, it's total bullshit that people love a guy whose films actually make money. It's not nearly as bad ass to sit around with your pretentious art school faggy friends and praise Nolan. Lets all rave about the genius of Michel Fucking Gondry and Vincent Up His Own Ass Gallo.

"It's not enough that he's making good summer blockbuster movies; the comments have literally name-checked every great filmmaker of the past 50 years, and every great film,"

A bit of hyperbole there. I'm not sure a single person on this thread, or in the history of HE has claimed Nolan is the greatest director of the past 50 years. But he manages to do something few others have even attempted. His movies are ambitious, and they have a heart, a brain, and they make a lot of money. He's the anti-Michael Bay. But, like any artist, he isn't perfect.

" because all of these people who have decided this in advance of seeing 'Inception' *are* going to react to it that way. How can they not? They've already decided it's the best movie of the decade."

This is a fairly clever paragraph, if your intent is to win an argument without giving the other side a fair shot. So now if we genuinely like the film, it's only because we decided we'd like it months ago.

Bull shit. We've all been let down plenty by filmmakers we love, and movies we expected to be masterpieces.

Don't project what your own lack of objectivity onto others.

comment #84

Gordn27 says ...

"Show me where I said I wanted adequate perfomances from smaller parts."

Pretty clear from this sentence that you aren't even reading what I wrote; Tball said that (as I said). You're the one who "laughed out loud" at the suggestion.

Seriously, everybody else is bored by this sidebar, where you just keep repeating the same thing over and over no matter what I say, so let's just move on, hmm? The rest of the conversation seems (to me) significantly more interesting than you going back over things that were said that you didn't understand the first time around (and yet still feel the need to criticize).

comment #85

bootsy says ...

'Pretty clear from this sentence that you aren't even reading what I wrote; '

Well who can read what you are writing. You are all over the freaking place with your thoughts. Here is an idea. Why don't you slow down and type.

'Seriously, everybody else is bored by this sidebar, where you just keep repeating the same thing over and over no matter what I say, so let's just move on, hmm? '

I was trying to move on with the Spike Lee comment but you kept on so yeah I am ready to move on if you are.

'The rest of the conversation seems (to me) significantly more interesting than you going back over things that were said that you didn't understand the first time around (and yet still feel the need to criticize).'

No the rest of the conversation was going fine until YOU butted in with your smarmy comments where you didn't need to butt into. So if you want to get on someone then you need to look at your self.

comment #86

bootsy says ...

'The rest of the conversation seems (to me) significantly more interesting than you going back over things that were said that you didn't understand the first time around (and yet still feel the need to criticize).'

Also it seems like I definitely am not the only one on here who finds your comments odd and idiotic.

comment #87

Gordn27 says ...

"And they were making films on a smaller scale, where they could spend more time working with individual actors. "

No, it's the opposite. Less money = less time overall. What you mean is that, because of the subject matter, their time was largely/entirely focused on actors rather than split between actors and special effects.

"Lets all rave about the genius of Michel Fucking Gondry and Vincent Up His Own Ass Gallo. "

Wow, talk about projection. Next time, you should at least dismiss me with pretentious directors I actually like, like Terry Gilliam. I'm not the guy singing Gondry's praises -- that's one of the Nolan fans in the thread. Sorry.

"I'm not sure a single person on this thread, or in the history of HE has claimed Nolan is the greatest director of the past 50 years."

Never said they did. (Though, since you're twisting my words like that, you should check out the IMDb message boards some time if you *really* want to see Chris Nolan being jerked off by fanboys.)

"His movies are ambitious, and they have a heart, a brain, and they make a lot of money."

This is the great quandary of being a pretentious Nolan fan; you're always going to bring up "makes a lot of money" and yet, simultaneously, you're going to argue about how all the Eloi "really don't get The Dark Knight".

"Don't project what your own lack of objectivity onto others. "

This really makes me laugh. You don't even need to leave this thread to see how "objective" everybody is about 'Inception', a movie that MOST of them haven't seen [I acknowledge there are actually informed critics chiming in... but I fail to see how anybody could have read even one post Jeff has made about 'Inception' and still argue that he's objective on the subject].

Here's a simple test: look at all the posts in this thread. See how many of them are talking sight unseen about how great 'Inception' is. Now look at my posts specifically and see if you can find a single thing I've said negative about 'Inception'. You can't, because I have no opinion on the film, because I haven't seen it yet. But, naturally, that means that I don't love it sight unseen so, for a Nolan fan, I'm not being "objective".

comment #88

Gordn27 says ...

"No the rest of the conversation was going fine until YOU butted in with your smarmy comments where you didn't need to butt into."

Wow, what an angry little nerd. I'm really not sure what to say to that. So, just to be clear, me disagreeing with you and asking for clarification was "smarmy", but you dismissing somebody's entire point with "LOL" was a cogent argument? And responding to it in any way is "butting in" on a conversation?

Brilliant! This place attracts the best commenters.

"I was trying to move on with the Spike Lee comment"

You'd think somebody who is obviously an angry nerd who spends a lot of time on the Internet would be used to the idea that the timing of these sorts of message board responses gets somewhat staggered, that a multi-paragraph post that went up a minute after a one sentence one was almost certainly written without knowledge of the latter... but, no, your anger blinds you to even that basic, obvious fact.

Okay, seriously this time, obviously you're not walking away, so you're going to "win" with your next response, because I won't bother with it.

comment #89

Thunderballs says ...

Maybe I should clarify, when I said the bald guy on the boat, I was not talking about Tiny Lister, though he is terrible, I was talking about the guy on the civilian boat who considers blowing up the convicts. The guy in the trenchcoat. He was TERRIBLE! The cop making jokes in the armored car. Terrible. The Spanish female cop? Terrible!

I appreciate Gordn27's attempts to explain for the idiots what I was talking about and what my larger points are, but I'm not really saying that a good director should get good performances from bad actors. What I'm saying is that Nolan CASTS terrible actors in smaller roles. Yes, his casting director deserves some of the blame, but Nolan I am sure has final say. One can cast good actors that are nobodies and get good performances out of them. I am hard pressed to think any director can get a good performance out of a bad actor, which is why casting is so important. You have to know good acting from bad acting when doing casting. Look at the Coen Brothers. Their films are always populated by nobody actors in a lot of the smaller roles, yet the Coens know good actors when they see them, which is why their films are filled with great performances. Look at A Serious Man. Almost the whole cast is nobodies except for a few roles, yet everyone is amazing in it! Why? Because they know how to cast.

Nolan is CLUELESS when it comes to casting. There is no reason to cast that bad actress as Gordon's wife. There is no reason to cast that awful actress as the Spanish female cop. No reason to cast that awful actor to play the dude in the trenchcoat on the civilian boat. And I'm sorry, but Michael Jai White is not a good actor, he is not compelling at all. Eric Roberts hammed it up, but at least he was entertaining.

Bad casting can sink a film! Anyone who can't see that, yet accuses me of not knowing shit about film, is a moron of the worst sort.

And then you have dopes like Bukowski saying that if you don't LOVE Nolan, then you hate movies! Is this guy serious? Are you kidding me?

Geoff, you're throwing the word "masterpiece" around with a little impunity. Not many films can be considered a masterpiece. Yes, Scorsese has made a masterpiece, but only one, and in my opinion it was The Last Temptation of Christ. Spielberg has never made a masterpiece. He came close with Jaws, but that's about it.

Altman made one masterpiece, Short Cuts. Woody Allen has made a couple, Annie Hall and Crimes & Misdemeanors. Cronenberg made Crash. Not many directors have made a masterpiece, a film where everything comes together in harmony...the casting, the writing, the music, the production design, the camera work, the direction, the editing.

Nolan has not come close to making a great film, much less a masterpiece. And it doesn't seem like he will, cause as I said, on his best day he is a competent studio hack.

And bootsy, I did not say everything about Nolan was bad, again you fail in reading comprehension. I said the guy has some good ideas, but is incapable or creating compelling drama around those ideas. The fake Batmen idea was genius, but he did nothing with it. Memento had a great conceit, but the film was boring and uninvolving, as well as really poorly written.

And I am so sick of the love for Pulp Fiction, there are some amazing sequences in the film, but long stretches of really bad writing, bad acting, and a truly bad third act. Reservoir Dogs is an almost perfect film, Pulp Fiction has some brilliant moments, but the whole is less than the parts.

And I don't get the hate for Diane Venora. I thought she was really good in Heat, way better than Ashley Judd. And she was fine in The Insider. But Mann cannot be forgiven for casting a chick he was banging just cause he was banging her. Woody got lucky with Diane Keaton, but it usually ends up being a bad thing. Mann has really great casting in his films for the most part, and ALWAYS gets great actors for the smaller roles, cause he understands the importance of casting to breathing life into a film.

And the plot holes in TDK are WAY too numerous to mention. The film, far from being realistic, borders sci-fi some things are so implausible. Joker's plans are way too intricate and detailed to ever work in the real world. He'd never be able to rig a whole hospital to explode without people noticing. Two Face's burns were insane, and no one with burns like that could walk around talking and drinking alcohol. But amazingly enough, these are the least of that film's problems, which all start with a bad script, lazy direction, and as previously stated, terrible casting.

comment #90

Geoff says ...

I guess you would put me in the camp of Nolan fans, then? Honestly, I still think The Dark Knight was a bit overrated but I am still eager to see this.....

But where' the hyperbole? Like others, if I see it and am disappointed, I will say so. What's the big ruse, here? I don't have a piece of the movie - I have a feeling it will be very good and some of these reviews do get me pretty enthused, but that's it.

I've been let down before and could admit it right away - freaking Kill Bill, what a disastrous disappointment that was after a seven year wait. Indiana Jones was my favorite character as a kid, but I could not let my "fanboy" love hide the fact that the last one completely sucked.

I mean, jeez, do you think we all part of some Nolan cult or something? So some early reviews mention Kubrick and a whole bunch of you get your panties in a bunch?

I have read recent reviews of movies from Noah Baumbach, Alexander Payne, Jason Reitman, and Judd Apatow referencing Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder, and Frank Capra - like this is some new thing to all of a sudden get crazy about?????

comment #91

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Very curious is a man's definition of "masterpiece" when it does not include Raging Bull or Taxi Driver...

comment #92

LexG says ...

I really, really don't give a shit about any of this, but Thunderballs saying "Scorsese has only made one masterpiece, and to me it is Last Temptation of Christ" -- well, from there pretty much everyone can throw in the towel and we're just dealing with wholly arbitrary subjective shit that isn't right or wrong but at the very least is so far off from the common logic that everyone's speaking a different fucking language. LTOC is a fine movie, but to pretend even for a second that one's arbitrary personal liking for it supercedes the entire rest of the world's appraisals of Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and GoodFellas means you guys are working up a froth over random POVs just shy of one Daniel Zelter.

comment #93

Gordn27 says ...

"I am hard pressed to think any director can get a good performance out of a bad actor, which is why casting is so important."

This is an interesting side question, but I think it's a bit open-ended. I mean, I think Sharon Stone is a bad actress, but there's a certain baseline competence that comes with (or leads to) being a star -- is she "bad" like Sofia Coppola? I don't know. But Scorsese got a great performance out of her.

How "bad" an actor is Burt Reynolds outside of 'Boogie Nights'? [Actually, Wahlberg, as a lead, too.]

sigh. I have a feeling that everybody's going to go back to arguing about Nolan and nobody's going to want to talk about what makes a great director great or not. Oh well.

comment #94

Geoff says ...

Thunderballs, I disagree with you on so many points, but the one that really threw things off was about Diane Venora - so a director is excused from bad casting if he's having sex wtih the actress? Maybe you were joking, but wow.....

What if Soon Yi showed up in all of Woody Allen's movies, post '92 - would you still think that way?

comment #95

Bukowski20 says ...

"No, it's the opposite. Less money = less time overall. What you mean is that, because of the subject matter, their time was largely/entirely focused on actors rather than split between actors and special effects."

I meant what I said.

"Lets all rave about the genius of Michel Fucking Gondry and Vincent Up His Own Ass Gallo. "

"Wow, talk about projection. Next time, you should at least dismiss me with pretentious directors I actually like, like Terry Gilliam. I'm not the guy singing Gondry's praises -- that's one of the Nolan fans in the thread. Sorry."

The same goes for Terry Gilliam, David Lynch, etc...

"Never said they did. (Though, since you're twisting my words like that, you should check out the IMDb message boards some time if you *really* want to see Chris Nolan being jerked off by fanboys.)"

You actually kind of did say that.

"This is the great quandary of being a pretentious Nolan fan; you're always going to bring up "makes a lot of money" and yet, simultaneously, you're going to argue about how all the Eloi "really don't get The Dark Knight"."

Did I do that? Pretty sure I didn't. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

"Here's a simple test: look at all the posts in this thread. See how many of them are talking sight unseen about how great 'Inception' is. Now look at my posts specifically and see if you can find a single thing I've said negative about 'Inception'. You can't, because I have no opinion on the film, because I haven't seen it yet. But, naturally, that means that I don't love it sight unseen so, for a Nolan fan, I'm not being "objective"."

If you're going to change the point I made, there is no sense in arguing with you.

No wonder you never lose an argument. You're almost as bad, in a totally different way, as DZ.

comment #96

LexG says ...

How "bad" an actor is Burt Reynolds outside of 'Boogie Nights'?

Another INSANE question.

Deliverance. Sharky's Machine. Starting Over. Hooper.

Don't be putting down The Bandit, ever.

comment #97

bootsy says ...

'Wow, what an angry little nerd. I'm really not sure what to say to that. So, just to be clear, me disagreeing with you and asking for clarification was "smarmy", but you dismissing somebody's entire point with "LOL" was a cogent argument? And responding to it in any way is "butting in" on a conversation?'

If anyone is a NERD it is you. You don't know me at all dude so I suggest you shutup on that.

comment #98

Thunderballs says ...

Bukowski, Gordn27 has already schooled your idiot self, but it's worth arguing your inane points even further.

You said:

"Yeah, it's total bullshit that people love a guy whose films actually make money."

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Who cares if the movie makes money? All anyone should care about is whether a film is good. What are you a studio exec studying the bottom line? Get real.

"It's not nearly as bad ass to sit around with your pretentious art school faggy friends and praise Nolan."

What's with the homophobic slurs? What is your problem, dude? Why are you so hateful?

"Lets all rave about the genius of Michel Fucking Gondry and Vincent Up His Own Ass Gallo."

Uh, Michel Gondry stinks as a film director, and should stick to music videos.

Vincent Gallo is a singular personality, and Buffalo '66 is a great film. He is not a great filmmaker though.

What's your point again?

"A bit of hyperbole there."

A bit? Only a bit?

"I'm not sure a single person on this thread, or in the history of HE has claimed Nolan is the greatest director of the past 50 years. But he manages to do something few others have even attempted. His movies are ambitious, and they have a heart, a brain, and they make a lot of money. He's the anti-Michael Bay. But, like any artist, he isn't perfect."

Wow, fellate Nolan much? He does stuff few others even ATTEMPT? What planet are you living on? What movies of his have made a lot of money aside from the Bat films? His films have a heart? Who's the "art school fag" now?

Cronenberg, Kubrick, Lynch - those are directors who actually take chances, directors who are actual artists. Nolan isn't fit to be a PA on their films.

"This is a fairly clever paragraph, if your intent is to win an argument without giving the other side a fair shot. So now if we genuinely like the film, it's only because we decided we'd like it months ago."

Uh, no. It's cause you're all vigorously defending a film you've not seen.

"Don't project what your own lack of objectivity onto others."

Oh, good lord you are a pretentious prick.

comment #99

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Also, don't think the fact that this thread is rallying -- soon to cross the 100 post mark -- is lost on Jeff.

I'm sure we can expect many more Inception threads over the next two weeks. Me? I'd like to talk a little Predators this week, personally, but then again I wanted to talk Splice last month, but apparently bagging on SATC2 was the only thing worth discussing here that particular week.

comment #100

Thunderballs says ...

Geoff, I said Mann CANNOT be forgiven for casting a chick just cause he was banging her. It is a terrible reason to cast someone, and Mann should know better. But she was good in Heat and adequate in The Insider.

comment #101

Gordn27 says ...

"I guess you would put me in the camp of Nolan fans, then?"

I'm sure you're waiting with baited breath to find out what random Internet commenter thinks of you Geoff...

well, I scanned this thread, and you seem pretty reasonable. I see no pre-formed opinion regarding 'Inception' in anything you've said, your defense of Nolan was reasonable and well-stated, and you sparked a good side conversation that died all-too quickly.

I bet that's a HUGE relief for you, right? ;)

But, hey, if you really think that this circle-jer -- oh, I mean thread, how totally silly of me! -- this thread has been filled with objective thoughts about 'Inception'... well, then you're getting much more unreasonable!

comment #102

Bukowski20 says ...

Tballs,

You're a dope for many reasons but this-

"Yes, Scorsese has made a masterpiece, but only one, and in my opinion it was The Last Temptation of Christ. Spielberg has never made a masterpiece. He came close with Jaws, but that's about it."

-is all the proof I need.

Plus you actually think Reservoir Dogs is superior to Pulp Fiction, which is an indefensible position.

comment #103

Thunderballs says ...

Gordn27 - not sure what you think makes a bad actor. I happen to think Sharon Stone is a good actress who makes awful choices, either by her own hand or cause she has a shit agent. But I don't think she is a bad actress. Same with Burt Reynolds. He's a good actor who makes awful choices of films to be in. Wahlberg is a terrible actor and was merely adequate in Boogie Nights, as he was supposed to play a dumb ass, and that's not a stretch for him.

comment #104

LexG says ...

Kaned... Good luck with that. Can't IMAGINE Jeff has much use for "Predators," seen or unseen. Usually I get annoyed when Jeff writes off hardcore action fare like it was entirely beneath him, but "Predators" looks like typical grungy Canadian-shot cheap Fox fanboy junk, always set in that same goddamn forest where you can't see anything, and the whole movie is people shouting out for each other and you have no ideally spatially where anyone is.

comment #105

Bukowski20 says ...

"Joker's plans are way too intricate and detailed to ever work in the real world. He'd never be able to rig a whole hospital to explode without people noticing. Two Face's burns were insane, and no one with burns like that could walk around talking and drinking alcohol."

Wait just a God damn second. Was TDK a documentary or a fictional film based on a God damned comic book about a billionaire that dresses up like a motherfucking bat and fights crime in Gotham? Have you tried finding Gotham on a map? It ain't fucking there!!

comment #106

Gordn27 says ...

"I meant what I said."

Ok, then what you're saying is stupid, ill-informed, and not based on the objective reality of film sets.

"You actually kind of did say that."

No, I said that "the comments have literally name-checked every great filmmaker of the past 50 years". You made that into "Chris Nolan is the best filmmaker of the past 50 years." It's not the same at all.

"Did I do that? Pretty sure I didn't. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth."

Well, first, your entire argument is to put words I didn't say into my mouth and argue against them, and, second, I was talking about all the Nolan fans. Check two threads down where there's an entire conversation about how it's unbelievable that the "Eloi" liked Dark Knight. They're totally serious.

"If you're going to change the point I made, there is no sense in arguing with you."

So, wait, you didn't just say that I'm not objective about 'Inception'? Wow, okay, you're right, I really didn't understand your point. Can you please explain what you meant by "Don't project what your own lack of objectivity onto others."? Being fair, you have to admit that it was your own terrible grammar that made that point unreadable (though I'm sure you'll try to turn it around and blame that on me too).

comment #107

Thunderballs says ...

Bukowski, you're obviously incapable of refuting any of the points I made in response to your inane postings, so you resort to just making fun of movies I like or don't like.

I love how it is indefensible to like Reservoir Dogs better than Pulp Fiction, but somehow you're able to defend the third act in Pulp Fiction? You're able to defend the whole Keitel sequence? The female cabby? Gimme a break.

You're a loser and a coward who runs away when faced with someone who doesn't roll over for your bullshit.

comment #108

Thunderballs says ...

Good one Bukowski, I forgot that no one talked about how realistic and grounded TDK was, and used that as justification for how good it was.

comment #109

Gordn27 says ...

"Was TDK a documentary or a fictional film based on a God damned comic book about a billionaire that dresses up like a motherfucking bat and fights crime in Gotham?"

Yes, let's just pretend that his point was not made in direct response to people talking about the gritty realism of 'The Dark Knight', that he's just making those criticisms in a void.

comment #110

Gordn27 says ...

damn! You beat me on that one, Tballs.

comment #111

Thunderballs says ...

Gordn27, I think maybe it is mean for us to take on Bukowski, I mean, the guy is so obviously below any acceptable levels of basic intellectual competence that to even engage him is to tease him.

comment #112

Bukowski20 says ...

"What the hell does that have to do with anything? Who cares if the movie makes money? All anyone should care about is whether a film is good. What are you a studio exec studying the bottom line? Get real."

I don't care if they make money. Certain ass clowns find it uncool to like a commercially successful director.

"What's with the homophobic slurs? What is your problem, dude? Why are you so hateful?"

Anybody with a brain knows faggy in that context has nothing to do with sexuality.

"Uh, Michel Gondry stinks as a film director, and should stick to music videos.

Vincent Gallo is a singular personality, and Buffalo '66 is a great film. He is not a great filmmaker though.

What's your point again? "

Should I explain it the way I would to my 12 year old niece? Would that help?

" He does stuff few others even ATTEMPT? What planet are you living on? What movies of his have made a lot of money aside from the Bat films? His films have a heart? Who's the "art school fag" now?"

Yes. Earth. The Batman films made a shit load. I guess I am.

"Cronenberg, Kubrick, Lynch - those are directors who actually take chances, directors who are actual artists. Nolan isn't fit to be a PA on their films."

Oh, God. A Lynch sighting. Talk about an overrated director. He's made one great film, one really good film, and a bunch of bullshit.

"Uh, no. It's cause you're all vigorously defending a film you've not seen."

When and where did I specifically defend Inception? Don't make up shit.

"Oh, good lord you are a pretentious prick."

Says the guy that thinks David Lynch is a genius.

comment #113

Thunderballs says ...

LexG - so you think there are objective great films, separate and apart from subjective great films? This is art we're talking about, it's all subjective!

Or are you one of those people who watches Citizen Kane, doesn't really like it, but still says it is a great film cause that's what "everyone" says?

If so, you are completely useless.

comment #114

Gordn27 says ...

"Wahlberg is a terrible actor and was merely adequate in Boogie Nights"

Going by his leads, I'd agree with the first part -- I think he's really good in 'Boogie Nights', but I'd even go with 'not a stretch". But he's been sooooo good in supporting roles ('Huckabees', 'Three Kings', 'Departed') that I can't dismiss him entirely. I don't know what to make of him, other than "stay away from movies he's the lead in".

comment #115

bootsy says ...

Gordn27,

You pick fights with just about every poster in the last 3 hours who doesn't have the same points as you do. You are a true moron.

comment #116

Thunderballs says ...

Yeah, I think Lynch is a genius. THINK. Not know. I don't pretend that people who disagree with me HATE movies, like you did above in this very thread when you stated that people who don't like Nolan hate movies.

Lynch made Eraserhead, Elephant Man, Dune, Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart. That's 5 great films in about 15 years. 5 more than Nolan has made.

comment #117

Bukowski20 says ...

"I love how it is indefensible to like Reservoir Dogs better than Pulp Fiction, but somehow you're able to defend the third act in Pulp Fiction? "

Where did I do that?

"You're able to defend the whole Keitel sequence?"

Where did I do that?

" The female cabby? Gimme a break."

Where did I do that?

"You're a loser and a coward who runs away when faced with someone who doesn't roll over for your bullshit."

You're a guy that resorts to name calling when he's lost an argument. How did I run away? I'm right here, kid.

"I forgot that no one talked about how realistic and grounded TDK was, and used that as justification for how good it was."

I did that? Where did I do that?

Gordo

"Yes, let's just pretend that his point was not made in direct response to people talking about the gritty realism of 'The Dark Knight', that he's just making those criticisms in a void."

It is realistic for a comic book movie. But it's still a movie and doesn't have to be as realistic as real life.

"I think maybe it is mean for us to take on Bukowski, I mean, the guy is so obviously below any acceptable levels of basic intellectual competence that to even engage him is to tease him."

It's one thing to say it. It's another thing to prove it.

You're the guy in his basement, getting angry that somebody disagrees with your hardly thought out theories. You get so mad that you start attributing other people's points to me. You make up shit that I said to defend Pulp Fiction that I never said.

You're a frothing at the mouth, raving mad, lunatic.

Get a hold of yourself. Use my words against me. Don't make up words to use against me.

Get it?

comment #118

Gordn27 says ...

"You pick fights with just about every poster in the last 3 hours who doesn't have the same points as you do."

Awwwwww, he's mad that I'm ignoring him now. Isn't that precious? It's okay, bootsy, we'll let you sit at the big boy table.

comment #119

Geoff says ...

No, Gordon, I was not waiting with baited breath - I just it's interesting how it's become Nolan Wars on this blog.

Fine, interesting discussion started a few posts go - what makes a great director?

I will be the first to admit that I know very little about the craft but as a pure movie fan, I love directors who can take me to a specific time and place, no matter how mundane or fantastical, and keep it interesting and engaging. ANY director can do pure spectacle with the right amount of money behind them and yes, ANY director can just film a bunch of seemingly "normal" characters shooting the shit in one place for 40 minutes of screentime - but is it engaging?

Do you feel like you're there or do you feel like you wish you could be there to check it out?

Among my favorite movies: Swingers - grew up in New York, pure East Coaster, now live in Chicago, NEVER wanted to visit LA. EXCEPT for the places in that movie, it did the unthinkable for me - made LA seems interesting. The work Doug Liman did in that film was just amazing - time and place, you are there.

Wall Street
Saturday Night Fever
Tootsie
Lost in Translation
Boogie Nights
Taxi Driver
Do the Right Thing

I am not saying by any means that the best movies all have to take place in urban settings, but there are just modern examples of directors who truly transported me to a setting and made it very compelling to watch and root for the characters.

And yes at one point, John Badham could really pull that off - I know the dude is just some TV director, now. But he also directed Wargames - he pulled off a purely "fun" (yet suspenseful) movie about potential nuclear war in the early '80's. And he did it with Matthew Broderick as the star! True cinematic achievement! And yes, casting played a part - Dabney Coleman, John Wood, Alley Sheedy, Barry Corbin - perfect! Not a Jessica Biel in that bunch just for show.

It's too easy to sing the praises of some one like Scorcese to proclaim what makes a great director, but John Badham - there ya go. That and I am an avid bicyclist and amazingly, he has made the ONLY interesting movie about bicycling in the past 25 years, American Flyers - how is that even possible?

comment #120

Bukowski20 says ...

Dune is not a great film, neither is Wild At Heart. Been too long since I've seen Eraserhead or Elephant Man. Blue Velvet is an absolute masterpiece. I'd put Mulholland Drive up there too.

He's average at best. It just sounds cool to say you like him. He's so edgy.

comment #121

Thunderballs says ...

bootsy, you mean Gordn27 actually argues with people who disagree with him???? Wow, that IS weird.

Gordn27 - agreed about Wahlberg in the Departed, not a fan of the other two films, but as far as Departed goes, like Boogie Nights, it was not a stretch for him. He basically played himself.

Do you think DiCaprio is a good actor? This is where our opinions may part, cause I think he kinda stinks as a lead, and plays the same character in every movie.

comment #122

Gordn27 says ...

"It is realistic for a comic book movie."

I think that's what it boils down to.

And for me personally, that's been the problem with both Nolan 'Batman's. He puts so much time into making it gritty and realistic, and that's cool, but he still has a certain level of comic book shit that he has to cram in, the stuff that he seems embarrassed about (like when he says 'it's not a comic book movie").

I mean, if, after two hours of 'Heat', Robert De Niro decided he was going to poison LA's water supply, it would seem like a bit of a tone shift. I have the same reaction to the comic book stuff Nolan throws in; it seems incongruous with the rest of the movie, you know?

comment #123

Thunderballs says ...

Bukowski, I had no idea it was cool to say you liked Lynch. Maybe back in 1989, but now? The guy has not made a good film since Lost Highway. I hardly think it is "cool" to say one likes him.

And you said it is "indefensible" to rate Reservoir Dogs over Pulp Fiction, which implies,( you know what implies means?) you think Pulp Fiction is a great film. Do you think it is a great film? If you do then that would also imply you think it has a great third act and great acting from the cast and great writing throughout.

comment #124

LexG says ...

T-Ballz:

No, I'm one of those people who watches CITIZEN KANE, thinks, eh, this was good for its time, but it's kinda boring and doesn't have any hot squack in it and it's not even in fucking color and the framing device with Cotton makes it more boring than it would be if it was just some Plainview/Tony Montana-esque rich asshole letting it all go to his head but steamrolling over everybody else in the movie, and come to think of it I'd rather be watching Scarface or There Will Be Blood because it wouldn't be as old and boring unrelatable.

comment #125

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

"but "Predators" looks like typical grungy Canadian-shot cheap Fox fanboy junk, always set in that same goddamn forest where you can't see anything, and the whole movie is people shouting out for each other and you have no ideally spatially where anyone is."

Obviously haven't seen the film, so I could very well be eating my words when it gets released in a few days, but based on the trailers, clips, and creature designs (I know, I know...you can never go on this sorta shit), I am getting really good vibes from this flick. The cast is a little weird (almost Anaconda-esque in its crazy eclecticism), but I'm not going to let that stop me from being mildly enthused for it.

Also, Nimrod (BAD name) Antal is actually a pretty competent director of action as he proved in Armored. And his early film Control (not to be confused with Corbijn's also-excellent Joy Division biopic) is fucking awesome. Check it out sometime if you haven't seen it.

In other news, it's going on 3AM Eastern and this thread has had over 60 posts in the last hour. Uhhhh, wow.

comment #126

Thunderballs says ...

LexG - then why is me saying that Last Temptation is Scorsese's only masterpiece "the end of the discussion" because everything is subjective? Your post implied that there are films that are objectively great, no?

comment #127

Bukowski20 says ...

Hey, Gordon. Sorry if it got personal a while back. I've never had a problem with you even if I disagree with you.. I got caught up in the debate. Sorry bout that.

I get what you're saying in comment 123. I just approached those Batman films for what they were, and they exceeded THOSE expectations. If I went in expecting The Godfather 1 & 2 I would've left disappointed.

I don't know if Inception will be good or not. But it's a summer film that seems to be the complete opposite of Transformers, and for me that's a positive.

comment #128

Gordn27 says ...

Tballs - first off, no 'Straight Story'? I think that's much better than 'Wild At Heart' (at least).

"Do you think DiCaprio is a good actor? This is where our opinions may part, cause I think he kinda stinks as a lead, and plays the same character in every movie."

I could go either way. I think, in general, he still seems young -- 'Revolutionary Road' and 'The Departed' are both hurt by this. He's completely miscast in 'Gangs of New York'. I think he does what you can do with 'Titanic' -- he's certainly *trying* to be great in it...

But just when I was going to completely write him off, 'The Aviator' came out, and he blew me away. (I know I'm in the minority on this one.) Not only did he do an amazing performance, but he managed to convincingly age thirty years largely through his performance. (It made how young he looked in some subsequent performances even less excusable.) And I was impressed overall by his performance in 'Blood Diamond'.

So he's not a guy I count on to give great performances, but I'll admit, if I see a movie he's in, I'm rooting for him to hit it out of the park.

comment #129

Bukowski20 says ...

"And you said it is "indefensible" to rate Reservoir Dogs over Pulp Fiction, which implies,( you know what implies means?) you think Pulp Fiction is a great film. Do you think it is a great film? If you do then that would also imply you think it has a great third act and great acting from the cast and great writing throughout."

See, why do you have to throw in the "implies" comment? Without bullshit like that we could have a nice debate.

I do think Pulp Fiction is a great film. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. Great and perfect are not always the same thing.

The cab driver part was bad and I never liked the hotel room scene with Bruce Willis and his girlfriend.

I also think it's far superior to Dogs.

comment #130

LexG says ...

"LexG - then why is me saying that Last Temptation is Scorsese's only masterpiece "the end of the discussion" because everything is subjective? Your post implied that there are films that are objectively great, no?"

Honestly, dude? I don't really give a shit. Have the fuck at it. I don't feel like sparring with anybody here tonight over any of this shit. I sorta can't believe ANYONE doesn't find "Taxi Driver" to be the HOLY SHIT, THIS IS ME movie of their life and the most relatable thing of ALL TIME EVER for ANY MAN EVER, and that they'd rather watch a movie about Jesus than about teenaged hookers and pimps and losers who can't score with chicks....

But again, I don't really care and your dancecard's full enough without you needing to needle me about it till sun-up.

comment #131

Gordn27 says ...

Buk - no hard feelings, and no apology needed; what would Hollywood Elsewhere be if we weren't all enjoying acting like assholes sometimes?

comment #132

Thunderballs says ...

LexG - I love Taxi Driver, I just don't think it is a perfect film.

comment #133

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Does a film really have to be "perfect" for you to consider it a masterpiece?

If so, that would make for a pretty short list. You going to tell me it was a "perfect choice" for Judas to speak with a Brooklyn accent?

Mmmmkay.

comment #134

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Yes, a whole bunch of quality assholery all around here tonight.

Cheers!

comment #135

Gordn27 says ...

"No, Gordon, I was not waiting with baited breath"

Geoff - If it wasn't clear, I was only making fun of myself there. I figured, if I'm chiming in saying "Hey, no, you, you're cool" somebody will call me out on how ridiculous that is, like I'm the decider, so I wanted to make fun of myself before anybody else did.

That said, I love your post, but it's really long and I can't think of much to say to it. Maybe other people will add to it or I'll have something to say later on the subject. It's too big and, to be honest, I tend to focus on entirely different things.

For me, thinking of great filmmaking, I don't think of the scope of 'The Apartment', the way it looks amazing, the brilliant performances. I think of the moment when Jack Lemmon opens the compact and discovers the mirror is broken. [I opened it up to filmmaking because, obviously, that's screenwriting rather than strictly direction... but, for Wilder, the distinction is moot and, anyway, the great direction was partially knowing that it didn't need any dialogue, regardless of what was on the page.]

comment #136

LexG says ...

Kudos to the whole gang for approaching *140* comments with nary a mention of Hispanics, fat people, cowboy hats, Megan Fox, feet, K-Stew, DeeZee's box-office prognostications, or flat California accents.

Though all but one of those things would be more enjoyable than some of the bullshit being thrown around in their stead.

comment #137

Gordn27 says ...

"You going to tell me it was a "perfect choice" for Judas to speak with a Brooklyn accent?"

I'm totally down with that choice.

Opening it up, I also think Kubrick made the right decision regarding accents with 'Paths of Glory'.

The thing is, no matter what you do in that situation, it won't be "correct". So, what feels right?

For me, the Brooklyn accents make it seem more relatable in a contemporary sense. In 'Paths of Glory', sure, the French people should be speaking French, but instead he hired a bunch of great actors from various countries and they talked with their normal accents, so you're not even thinking about "This is taking place in France in 1916".

But I understand people getting hung up on it; I don't mean to say you're wrong to do so.

comment #138

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

It's not the accent I"m really bagging on...I actually like the choice, too.

It's more T-ball's suggestion that he doesn't consider a film to be a masterpiece because it isn't "perfect."

I don't mean to put words into his mouth (but hey -- since we're all assholes here...), but I have a feeling if you talked to him about what he considered some of TD's faults, he'd probably mention the oddball scenes -- Bickle throwing the Alka-Seltzer into his glass and just staring down the black patrons in the cafe in slo-mo, the awkardly extended dialogue scene between DeNiro and Boyle where they try to discuss their "careers," and Sport expressing his love and devotion to Iris.

I'm pretty sure none of these scenes could be accurately described as "perfect," but I kind of can't imagine the movie without them. But then again, I like a little bit of flabby fat on my cinematic.

I guess it's kind of like the people that go to a concert and are disappointed when they don't hear a song played as tightly or as cleanly as they do on the album. Well, where exactly is the fun in following the blueprint down to the tee?

comment #139

LexG says ...

Kaned, you just described some of the single greatest scenes in the movie, if not in the history of cinema.

The Alka-Seltzer? Travis eyeballing the black pimps? The Peter Boyle scene????? GENIUS.

The only even MILD nitpick I'd have is maybe Albert Brooks doing too much shtick, or his bad wardrobe, but that's really, really just looking for something to complain about being less great than anything else.

Nuts. This whole thread.

comment #140

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

It's like that weird high school reunion subplot in Fargo. It definitely doesn't lead anywhere, doesn't tie into the rest of the movie either thematically or literally, and I have serious doubts that it even adds anything important to Marge Gunderson's character. But I'm still glad the Coens didn't leave that scene on the cutting room floor (I think a lesser director probably would, and they'd have perfectly valid reasons for doing so).

It adds something to the film, but I think it's impossible to say exactly what that is. It's unquantifiable. It's a stupid thing to write into such a plot-driven movie like that, in a way. If someone argued that the scene was wasteful and unnecessary, I would find it almost impossible to disagree with him.

I think my only possible response would be a DZ-esque, idiot-savant-like, "it is an unnecessary scene, and that's precisely the reason why it had to be included."

comment #141

Gordn27 says ...

"I have serious doubts that it even adds anything important to Marge Gunderson's character"

Finding out that Mike lied to her leads her to be more suspicious of Lundegaard and go back and question him again. Or, anyway, that's what I've always thought. It sparks her intuition.

But, that said, it wouldn't work in a lot of movies, but 'Fargo' has entire characters that would counter the idea that it's a strictly plot-driven movie. [Does Marge's husband have one relevant thing to say or do in the movie? I love him, don't get me wrong, but what I love most about him is the way they'll interrupt exposition for stuff like, "Hey, aren't you supposed to be fishing?" "... yeah, after lunch."]

comment #142

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Lex -- please don't misunderstand my point. Those are some of my favorite scenes, too*.

I'm just trying to imagine what someone who doesn't consider Taxi Driver a masterpiece (since I've never met that person in real-life) would consider the weak scenes to be. One would have to assume they wouldn't include any of the scenes taking place in the actual taxi (too thematically important to the voyeuristic motif), or anything in the final reel (that last 30 minutes is such a masterfully executed downard spiral of operatically raw emotions that Trent Reznor might as well have dedicated that album to Travis Bickle in his liner notes).

*That, and the scene where he buys the guns from Steven Prince, he takes Betsy on the "porno date" ("it's what normal couples do!"), and basically any shot involving DeNiro doing anything by himself (writing those painfully-sincere letters to his family, knocking over television set, and especially "practicing" with his knife and guns"). Hell, who am I kidding? I love the whole thing.

comment #143

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

It must be getting late. I don't know why I would say that it's a plot-driven movie. I mean, it is a movie with a lot of plot packed into it, and it seems to have less deviations than most of their "straight-up" comedies, but it's still the Coens Brothers.

Which means what, exactly? I don't really know. I just know that whatever they decide to do, it just usually seems to work. For such prolific filmmakers, I actually kind of find most of their movies hard to talk about at length -- biggest exception: NCFOM -- which is odd (but based on their interviews and lack of audio commentaries, they seem to feel similarly).

That's a interesting point about Gunderson's intuition. Makes sense, really, I just never chose to connect the dots in quite that way, I guess?

comment #144

Gordn27 says ...

Keep in mind, that's largely "Well, this is a story, so if this thing that seems unconnected happens right before this other thing, maybe there's a cause/effect thing going on". It might not be the case. it certainly depends on the assumption that, in the next scene, Marge has some idea or suspicion about Jerry, even if she can't put her finger on it.

comment #145

nightheat says ...

It seems like Nolans fanbase are the comic book nerds. Nolan turns comic book trash into high art. Why wouldn't they love the guy? Get real. Batman is not art. The Dark Knight is ejaculatory fantasy all over the screen from beginning to end. What Nolan did was take the genre seriously, a pandering to the masses, its a billion dollar joke. If Inception is pure Nolan - fine. Let's see if this guy is the real deal.. but its suspect. I think he's the Micheal Bay of Faux-Art-Films... but whatever.

comment #146

Markj74 says ...

Bukowski20, don't diss the 'Dune'.

Matt Holmes: I'm a Nolan fan myself but critics bandy about the word masterpiece too easily. Nothing in Nolan's filmography suggests he will turn out a masterpiece anytime soon. He's on a level beyond anyone else in their generation technically (except Fincher) but he's still missing a certain 'something' in his films that will take him to the next level. A better writing collaborator could be the key, 'The Dark Knight' was composed solely of scenes where the characters made statements at each other.

Of course, everything's relative. Compared to JJ Abrams Nolan is David Lean.

comment #147

Ray DeRousse says ...

@ CitizenKaned & Gordn27 - Wow, you guys might be right about that reunion scene in Fargo leading to Marge's intuition!

Huh.

I had never taken it that way. I thought that scene was Marge's brief moment reconsidering her marriage to her do-nothing husband. Before that scene, the two of them had fallen into a routine and Marge was pregnant. So when Marge gets the chance to meet up with an old high school friend/sweetheart(?), she takes it.

I think what led me to think that way is the way Marge enters the restaurant: she pauses, fixes her hair a little bit, and prepares herself. It always seemed very nervous to me, as if she really wanted to make a good impression.

I dunno. It's an odd scene in that film, but I love it nonetheless. The Coens stick scenes like that in every film, and probably only they know the real meaning.

comment #148

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

For what it's worth, Ray, that's always kind of the way I read the scene, too. When I said it doesn't lead anywhere, I really meant that as a compliment in the sense that I'm soooo glad it just hinted at her romantically impotent relationship, and we never got an extended confrontation sequence between Marge and Norm (one of the things I admire most deeply about Joel & Ethan is how they never seem to bore the seasoned audience member by including the scenes that are just as easily imagined in the viewer's head).

Either way, I think it's a real testament to the Coens' masterful filmmaking technique that the scene can be legitimately read either way (or both), and probably even a few more.

comment #149

Yuval says ...

I haven't really thought about it when seeing Fargo, but Mike Yanagita's lies leading to her requestioning Lundegaard was pointed out by Richard Kelly in the Donnie Darko Director Cut's commentary track. Which led to Kevin Smith saying that he thought that scene was there just to use the line "you're such a supel lady". I think that was the point I lost all hope of Smith doing a good movie again.

comment #150

raygo says ...

I still remember sitting in a theater in Collingswood NJ in the summer of 1976 watching Taxi Driver. Mesmerizing. There was nothing like it.

comment #151

goodvibe61 says ...

Boy, this thread is all over the place.

I guess we're not really talking about Inception here. Wandering on down through the thread I guess my two cents would be:

1. I think some people on this thread are missing some very seriously important elements of character that are revealed in the third act of Pulp Fiction. The way that both Jules Winfield and Vincent Vega (a.k.a. Lash Larue) play off Winston Wolf (effeminite) AND Jimmie (wielding the power of his wife Bonnie) goes a long way toward explaining the ultimate fates of the two characters. Just as the way those characters relate to female characters earlier in the film provides considerable insight into the reasons the pair act the way they do. It's significant, Tarantino does not waste the female characters in his movies (an oft referenced criticism of his writing that is considerably off base), and certain revelations of character in these sequences tie directly to the fates of the two leads in the film.

I also would add that the final sequence of that film is among the films' strongest, and that the ending is quite powerful. So to say that the third act of the film is weak is something I'd have to strongly disagree with.

2. The LAST thing that Citizen Kane is would be boring. That's some of the dumbest sh*t I've read ever. Yeah, it doesn't have Megan Fox in it. Or K Stew. Can't somebody please give me a break from that crap?

comment #152

Homie Cat says ...

Bootsy: "If anyone is a NERD it is you. You don't know me at all dude so I suggest you shutup on that."

Well from this, I know that you're a cunt.

comment #153

Thunderballs says ...

All the scenes you guys mentioned from Taxi Driver are great. The things that prevent it from being a masterpiece are Albert Brooks, who deflates the film anytime he's there, though I do understand what his purpose serves in the narrative, I'm just not a fan of his scenes. And the tacked on ending. It should have ended at the bloodbath, not with Bickle being hailed as a hero.

And Fargo is pretty damn close to being a masterpiece, same with The Big Lebowski.

As far as Last Temptation goes, the Brooklyn accents make perfect sense in the narrative Scorseese created, which was that the apostles were "men of the street."

comment #154

Thunderballs says ...

*Scorsese

comment #155

bootsy says ...

'Well from this, I know that you're a cunt. '
OMG, who are you and furthermore who cares. Let it go already. This happened yesterday and you are still carrying on like a 2 year old.

comment #156

Gordn27 says ...

"When I said it doesn't lead anywhere, I really meant that as a compliment in the sense that I'm soooo glad it just hinted at her romantically impotent relationship"

See, to me, looking at their relationship as romantically impotent would take away from the ending. I love that they have this "boring" relationship but they're totally happy with each other, and the life that Marge has away from policework is what keeps her happy and sane. They're not overly affectionate, but they love each other in a great married way -- I mean, the way he's just going "You gotta have a good breakfast..."

But, at the same time, I can't say you're wrong, which is part of why I like it.

comment #157

bluefugue says ...

>And Fargo is pretty damn close to being a masterpiece, same with The Big Lebowski.

Fargo is a masterpiece, and maybe the best American film of the '90s.

comment #158

DeeZee says ...

Best American film of the 90s is Very Bad Things.

comment #159

designerbag says ...

Our gucci shop providing various collection of wholesale gucci handbags in our online store. gucci purses is very durable and comfortable to carry, functional and fashionable. With it's outstanding quality, perfect Italian craftsmanship, cheap price as well as our good after-sales service, we do believe that there must be one style of handbags is what you want to purchase. Better handbags, better life. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to email us now and you will get a satisfied reply within 24 hours

comment #160

Vicky says ...

fm stereo transmitter
should be best choice.
Wire fm transmitter

comment #161

dota 2 says ...

K&D IR IP Camera
ir IP cameras,waerproof ir security Cameras,ip Cameras in Shenzhen China,PTZ IP Camera,IP PTZ,PTZ IP Cameras,PTZ Dome Camera,CCTV PTZ Camera,China factory