|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 2, 2018 2:13:46 GMT
Kubrick David Lynch Orson Welles Hitchcock Scorsese Terrence Malick
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 2:47:37 GMT
Kubrick - His movies lack a certain warmth.
Scorsese - Not a popular opinion, but I found Raging Bull to be mediocre, save for Robert De Niro's admittedly strong performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 2, 2018 2:50:34 GMT
Kubrick - cold David Lynch - weird Orson Welles -fat Hitchcock -chinless Scorsese -arcless (as in his central characters never change or learn anything) Terrence Malick - pretentious |
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 2, 2018 3:07:44 GMT
Most of their movies tend to go on for too long in the runtime. Not necessarily a criticism, but an issue I have when I wanna watch a full movie in one proper sitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Dec 2, 2018 3:21:35 GMT
Something negative about these directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 3:23:46 GMT
Most of their movies tend to go on for too long in the runtime. Not necessarily a criticism, but an issue I have when I wanna watch a full movie in one proper sitting. Good point and I agree. Really long movies (as in 2.5-3 hours) really are a struggle to get through in a single sitting. I often end up having to break them up into 2 parts, so they end up becoming like a miniseries. It's not ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 2, 2018 3:27:17 GMT
Most of their movies tend to go on for too long in the runtime. Not necessarily a criticism, but an issue I have when I wanna watch a full movie in one proper sitting. Good point and I agree. Really long movies (as in 2.5-3 hours) really are a struggle to get through in a single sitting. I often end up having to break them up into 2 parts, so they end up becoming like a miniseries. It's not ideal. Exactly. Not part of the OP’s list, but Peter Jackson is infamous for having his movies clock in at 3 hrs. And as much as I enjoy the LOTR trilogy, I’ve only seen them once since, and haven’t had the chance to revisit them, because they’re just so long. And don’t even get me started on the Extended Editions. |
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 4:45:48 GMT
Good point and I agree. Really long movies (as in 2.5-3 hours) really are a struggle to get through in a single sitting. I often end up having to break them up into 2 parts, so they end up becoming like a miniseries. It's not ideal. Exactly. Not part of the OP’s list, but Peter Jackson is infamous for having his movies clock in at 3 hrs. And as much as I enjoy the LOTR trilogy, I’ve only seen them once since, and haven’t had the chance to revisit them, because they’re just so long. And don’t even get me started on the Extended Editions. I'm in the exact same boat RE the LOTR films. I can recall the last one in particular taking forever to conclude. I hope to re-watch them in the coming months, having only seen them once many years ago. I'm not sure which version I own on DVD, as in whether it's the standard or extended editions, but regardless it's going to be a big undertaking. As far as Peter Jackson is concerned, part of what ruined his version of King Kong for me was its 3-hour run time. A shorter, 2-hour movie would have made for a more digestible end product. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 2, 2018 4:53:30 GMT
Exactly. Not part of the OP’s list, but Peter Jackson is infamous for having his movies clock in at 3 hrs. And as much as I enjoy the LOTR trilogy, I’ve only seen them once since, and haven’t had the chance to revisit them, because they’re just so long. And don’t even get me started on the Extended Editions. I'm in the exact same boat RE the LOTR films. I can recall the last one in particular taking forever to conclude. I hope to re-watch them in the coming months, having only seen them once many years ago. I'm not sure which version I own on DVD, as in whether it's the standard or extended editions, but regardless it's going to be a big undertaking. As far as Peter Jackson is concerned, part of what ruined his version of King Kong for me was its 3-hour run time. A shorter, 2-hour movie would have made for a more digestible end product. Oh yeah, that too. I had to watch that on 2 discs. Haven’t seen it for a while, though. Going by your memory, which of the LOTR films is your favourite? |
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 5:00:13 GMT
I'm in the exact same boat RE the LOTR films. I can recall the last one in particular taking forever to conclude. I hope to re-watch them in the coming months, having only seen them once many years ago. I'm not sure which version I own on DVD, as in whether it's the standard or extended editions, but regardless it's going to be a big undertaking. As far as Peter Jackson is concerned, part of what ruined his version of King Kong for me was its 3-hour run time. A shorter, 2-hour movie would have made for a more digestible end product. Oh yeah, that too. I had to watch that on 2 discs. Haven’t seen it for a while, though. Going by your memory, which of the LOTR films is your favourite? Based on my very fuzzy memories of the films, I'd have to say The Fellowship of the Ring. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 2, 2018 5:01:54 GMT
Oh yeah, that too. I had to watch that on 2 discs. Haven’t seen it for a while, though. Going by your memory, which of the LOTR films is your favourite? Based on my very fuzzy memories of the films, I'd have to say The Fellowship of the Ring. That’s my favourite too. Return of the King would be a close second, but again it’s a chore to get through in terms of time. |
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 5:07:26 GMT
Based on my very fuzzy memories of the films, I'd have to say The Fellowship of the Ring. That’s my favourite too. Return of the King would be a close second, but again it’s a chore to get through in terms of time. The length's the killer with these movies. Ain't that the truth. Have you seen or read the novel? It's massive! I tried reading it a few years ago, but then decided...nah. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 2, 2018 5:09:02 GMT
That’s my favourite too. Return of the King would be a close second, but again it’s a chore to get through in terms of time. The length's the killer with these movies. Ain't that the truth. Have you seen or read the novel? It's massive! I tried reading it a few years ago, but then decided...nah. Never read the novels. I’m not a book reader myself, though I’ll read on rare occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 2, 2018 5:15:53 GMT
Stanley Kubrick: can’t stand his work, sorry. I guess The Shining is OK, but his movies strike me as a combination of clinicism, despair, and pretense. There’s not a single character I’m ever interested in in his work.
Orson Welles: tendency to go overboard with things, liked playing around with light and color and sound and novelties rather than concentrating on his story. Inability to compromise–ego through the roof. Not his own best actor, compared to the other great performances in his films, yet puts himself at the center of everything. (I’m still a huge fan!)
Alfred Hitchcock: not an actor’s director, sometimes weak performances when not working with great actors. Tendency to have cheap look to production (The Birds, Marnie), especially when working in color. Special effects often shoddy-looking compared to other contemporaneous directors. Could get bogged down in longueurs when he did do his much-hated “pictures of people talking” (’54 Man who Knew Too Much). (I’m still a huge fan of him too!)
Martin Scorsese: haphazard style of directing, obviousness of technique, halting actor delivery. New for the time, not necessarily “better.” Can wallow too much in violence. Sometimes wonky and obvious metaphors and visual significance. (Also still a… Well, you know.)
I haven’t seen anything from Lynch or Malick.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 5:18:38 GMT
The length's the killer with these movies. Ain't that the truth. Have you seen or read the novel? It's massive! I tried reading it a few years ago, but then decided...nah. Never read the novels. I’m not a book reader myself, though I’ll read on rare occasions. Well, it's certainly not one I'd recommend for anyone who isn't a very avid and patient reader. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 2, 2018 10:33:00 GMT
I found Raging Bull to be mediocre How come? |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 2, 2018 22:20:19 GMT
While not on the list, but I find Tarantino to be self-indulgent (especially with his last two films). His last two films were good, but they were overlong and sometimes Tarantino has his characters "overtalk" as if he's so in love with his dialogue and is unwilling to cut anything out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2018 22:59:16 GMT
Kubrick - wasn't very nice to Shelly Duvall
David Lynch - he got two chances to end Twin Peaks on a high note and wasted both
Orson Welles - trolled the country into thinking they were being attacked by aliens, went up against one of the most powerful tycoons in the world, but couldn't cast an actual Mexican or black actor for Touch of Evil and Othello
Hitchcock - wasn't very nice to Tippi Hedrin? Though I find a lot of her stories suspect
Scorsese - his passion projects (Silence, GONY) aren't as good as his regular projects
Terrence Malick - storytelling tends to take a backseat to nature documentation and poetry
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Dec 3, 2018 3:04:45 GMT
Kubrick - some of his humor falls flat/doesn't work
David Lynch - some of the violence/grotesque is a little gratuitous
Orson Welles - color films detract from the purity of his vision
Hitchcock - can be a little hit and miss, some of his stuff comes of as a little ordinary
Scorsese - films sometimes tend to fetishize/glorify pretty horrible people, films can move a little too quickly at times
Terrence Malick - has become too prolific, which has worn away at some of his mystique
|
|
