Why did most of his films get mixed reviews from critics?
The dude was doing shit many people though wasn't possible so people saw it as shit I guess
Cause whether you like it or not, the dude kept pushing the boundaries for film in the visual sense. He did shit that was ground breaking and set the tone for future films to come. If you were witnessing that stuff during that time period you'd also be mixed or polarized by it too
>>68012959
He is overrated
He deserved mixed reviews, just like Bowie
>>68012959
He's in Panama Papers too because of his castle house in england lmao
who's the current Kubrick?
>>68013312
Snyder
![MTE1ODA0OTcxOTY3MDg4MTQx[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/J9vRydc.jpg "MTE1ODA0OTcxOTY3MDg4MTQx[1].jpg")
>>68013312
Because when you are an auteur you are going to push buttons.
>>68013126
Kubrick's influence on cinema was one of the most destructive forces and brought its quality down a lot.
>>68013312
Nolan is the new Kubrik but better
>>68013451
Interstellar is better than what Kubrick did. Kubrick as whole was a fucking pleb bait of the highest order.
>>68012959
cause his movies were usually diferent from the source book
>>68013312
I honestly believe PTA is getting there. Boogie Nights and Magnolia are good in their story and how he fully develops it, everything afterwards (especially Punch Drunk Love and The Master) shows he has a very good mind for visuals. Give him twenty years and he'll be there, if not Ben Wheatley has just as good a shot. Same goes for the rest,
Kaufman = Bergman - visuals
Innaritu = Tarkovsky - catholicism theology preaching
Wes Anderson = Woody Allen - (paedophilia +neurosis)
>>68013387
>and brought its quality down a lot
Elaborate.
>>68013312
Tarantula
>>68013312
guy who directed field in england and high rise. ironic i cant remember his name.
>>68013558
If *PTA* is getting to *Kubrick* he is doing *it wrong* by not being auteur defined by his own visions and themes and is thus quite empty film maker.
Which he isn't, he is clearly focusing on growth without movement and on a sort of edgy commentary on US
Kubrick was an aspie mother fucker who could make great visuals but couldn't into story or character. His ego was too great to allow him to understand his own limitations.
If the viewer is visually oriented they applaud his genius. If they are not, they find his movies boring and pretentious.
>>68013618
Story and character come far behind visuals in film making. Like you don't even need story or character, let alone both, for a great film.
Cause he was btfo of convention. Imagine if 1930s movies started executing bitching fight choreography while being set to contemporary hits of the time. Audiences would have thought them barbaric
>>68013558
PTA is the new Altman you pleb
>>68013312
jonathan glazer
>>68013679
and better than his master, Altman a shit.
>>68013558
>Innaritu = Tarkovsky - catholicism theology preaching
Revenant is not the only movie he made.
>Wes Anderson = Woody Allen
nah. Wes is tumblr as shit, Woody is not.
>>68013618
>who could make great visuals but couldn't into story or character
>If the viewer is visually oriented they applaud his genius. If they are not, they find his movies boring and pretentious.
ok now i'm confused
even if you're not visually oriented you'll applaud his genius because obviously that's the only thing he was good at
his movies are boring and pretentious because they can't into story or character
>>68013637
Congratulations, you're a visually oriented person who probably thought Avatar was amazing.
>>68013735
>I need story and characters to enjoy a film
b8
>>68013748
>he thinks James Cameron has ever been visually interesting director let alone good one
b8
>>68013558
I also think taht PTA is our Kubrick, but when I think about IƱarritu I still see the stupid unnecesary gimmicky montage in 21 grams, babel, Amores Perros, and biutiful, and you can't gel less Tarkovsky than that.
Yes, Revenant is kinda Tarky, but not really.
>>68013771
you're contradicting your own posts
are you bipolar or something
>>68013771
>I'm too autistic to understand that other people's brains work differently than mine.
>>68013802
I'm not. You just seem to confuse visually interesting director with something like 'Avatar' and James Cameron when you could not have named more boring director and film visually.
.
>>68013451
fuck off, a guy who creates moronic comic book style plots, uses only dark blue in his movies and creates the most shallow characters without any real human straits has nothing to do with kubrick
Its like an autistic fuck finally gets to make his "le mind fuck story" as a feature film but his only real human connection is boy's adventure books and superhero comics so the dialogue and characters fall completely flat and exist just to drive the story onwards
>>68013859
i'm not the guy talking about avatar and cameron
either way you're lost in your own posts and thoughts
>>68013371
Too much of a tryhard. Kubrick's overall vibe seems like he didn't give too much of a shit and was only interested in getting good shots. Yeah. Kubrick's stuff is considered deep, but when you're watching them, it feels like it's going over your head. Nolan is a fucking tryhard. Every time he wants to show something, he'll go out of his way to point it out to the audience, as if to say "Look how deep and intricate I am."
>>68013824
>>68013898
I'm just pointing out your pleb sensibilities, no need to get angry~
>muh story
>muh characters
>>68012959
cause they fucking suck
>>68013898
don't bother trying to understand anon, he's obviously a retard.
>>68013312
Nicolas Winding Refn
>>68013312
Scorcese in terms of having a style that carries over multiple genres, nolan too maybe if he expands more beyond scifi and drama
>>68013312
>>68013312
David Fincher
>>68013312
Either Christopher Nolan or David Fincher
>>68014225
critics brought their own critiques and perspectives, undermining their ability to perceive his genius. only from our post-mortem informational agr perspective can we truly understand his art.
>>68013464
7/10. Almost got me with that one
>>68013312
Probably Nolan
>>68014346
No shitty symbolism that makes for 'epin visuals' and not a no-answer film with cynical narrative for edgelords. Far better by these two things alone
>>68014400
Do you watch films solely for entertainment?
![Interstellar.2014.mkv_snapshot_02.42.13_[2016.04.08_18.54.25].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/t6q4Kdb.jpg "Interstellar.2014.mkv_snapshot_02.42.13_[2016.04.08_18.54.25].jpg")
>>68014457
>Edgelords this defensive when the Power of Love kino is far better than Kubrick's limp wristed baww world is evil cruel people are evil trash
pleb
>>68013312
Someone who was ground break, visually impressive, polarized by critics? I don't think such person exist.
>>68014536
>baww world is evil cruel people are evil trash
That's what you thought 2001 is about? What part of the film conveys that message at all?
>>68013312
Nicholas Winding Refn
>>68014591
Everything about Kubrick's cinema is nihilistic and misantrophistic. I can't recall one film that wasn't.
>>68014546
>Someone who was ground break, visually impressive, polarized by critics? I don't think such person exist.
Yes it does exist.
>>68013126
Pretty much this.
>>68013312
Terrence Malick is the closest I can think that would fit the bill
Because real art polarizes. Real art inspires strong opinions and debate. "Critical consensus" is a result of safe mediocrity. Marvel movies get critical consensus because everyone thinks they're OK. There's no real point-of-view to strongly agree or disagree with.
RottenTomatoes has fucking ruined a whole generation of film critics and film fans.
>>68014695
>Terry
>having anything similar to Kubrick
? u fucking stupid or what
>>68014752
>Ground breaking, visually impressive, polarizing to critics.
It could be argues that Terry is all of those things.
>>68014741
Well said
>>68014752
>polarized by critics
Check
>visually stunning
Check
>overall themes that take over ones narrative
Check
>at least one film that is considered an a masterpiece
Check
The only difference is that Malick's themes are spiritual and more on faith and life itself
>>68014752
Terry kinda fits it though
>>68014866
>asking who is the kurrent cubrick
>think the retard is asking for people similar in visual sense and aesthetic
>someone replies terrence malick
?!?!+1+1+!?!?1+1+1?!+1+1
>>68014993
You ok buddy?
>>68014695
>Terrence Malick is the closest I can think that would fit the bill
Kubrick was really worried about his movies success and about making money. Malick clearly is not.
>>68014866
this.
but Kubrick worked with different genres, not only drama.
>>68015097
>Plebs think that genres are meaningful
this thread gkeeps on giving
>>68014993
Does Terrence Malick anger you?
>>68013167
haha, really? has the Kubrick estate been implicated? any details on how much they were funneling in overseas tax shelters?
>>68015144
???
i was just pointing a difference between Kubrick and Terrance
>>68014646
not dissing him but he's pretty much culturally irrelevant. although i'm really sure how big kubrick was in his day
>>68013312
Gimme that kitty
>>68015235
no!
>>68015225
So? Capeshit films are more culturally relevant than Terry or Kubrick combined. Are they good? No.
Fuck you and your retarded ass
>>68013618
Doctor Strangelove, Barry Lydon and Full Metal Jacket would like to have a word with you.
>>68015262
They're not particularly relevant to film making as an art form in any way.
>>68012959
Because critics didn't know how to understand an actual film auteur. Most of his films were way over the general audience and critics heads.
>>68015262
Are you implying his movies are good? Cause they are just as shit as capeshit.
>>68015262
They are not culturally relevant. You could just re-run spiderman 1 & 2 all years long, and people wouldn't be inspired by them no more than they are inspired by fucking batman & justice league or whatever is running on screen this year
>>68015334
>>68015334
Moving the goal post fucking moron. Now it's *relevant to film making* instead of *culturally relevant*`
>>68015372
I don't actually like Kubrick one bit and think he was a mediocre director
>>68013558
Innaritu = Tarkovsky - catholicism theology preaching
>these two similar in any way
>catholicicsm
>>68015379
The fact alone that capeshit sells like hot cakes in comparison to both Kubrick and Terry makes it more culturally relevant, and the fact it's one of the top selling gimmicks in films now makes it more culturally relevant than Terry or Kubrick.
>>68013312
Malick obviously.
Plebs will say Inarritu tho
>>68015262
what the fuck are you even talking about dude. all i'm saying is that terry has a certain audience, and that a comparison to kubrick i think should consider cultural significance
is this an indictment on terry? it's obvious that i absolutely meant no such thing
the question wasn't strictly about just a director's work itself, but it's response. don't pull that bullshit capeshit response when you well know no one is looking there
>>68015392
I like some of his movies, but I was referring more to Terry. I really dislike his films, though I have to admit the "the beginning" scene of Tree of Life is amazing, even though it's basically a Discovery Channel montage with music.
>>68015465
Kubrick was more like Inarritu in that both are selling pseudo-philosophical shit with huge flaws in script masked in *VISUALSSSSSSSSSSS LOOK AT VISUALLLLSSSSSS*
>>68013558
>Innaritu = Tarkovsky - catholicism theology preaching
jesus fucking christ what a disgusting opinion
>people comparing a cold machine like Kubrick to a passionate and much more casual and emotion-driven director like Malick
>>68015531
You know it's true
>>68013312
Zack Snyder
>>68013312
Honestly? Wes Anderson. Their films couldn't be more different in content and philosophy, but they have the same obsessive-compulsive approach to framing and visual detail, a consistency of vision that carries through their entire body of work, they both demand a very specific style of performance from their actors.
I can't really think of other directors who have the same meticulous approach to the technical side of their craft, except possibly David Fincher. But Fincher doesn't have the same "consistency of vision," he's extremely talented and he's made great films, but he's basically a gun-for-hire rather than an auteur.
>>68015608
Explain your points
Who's the most important director of our time that'll be remembered for years to come?
>>68013558
wow it's like you've seen only one or maybe two films from each of these directors.
PTA = Altman, obviously. I mean c'mon where in Boogie Nights do you see a Kubrickian influence?
Charlie Kaufman = nobody. He's doing his own thing. His visuals aren't even remotely similar to Bergman's.
Inarittu = Tarkovsky only if "they both are known for innovative camerawork" counts a reason to think of them as the same. Also Tarkovsky wasn't even Catholic, you hack.
Wes has similarities to Allen in terms of writing, but not much else at all.
Guys, what's a good film of Tarkovsky's to introduce me to his work?
>>68015518
IƱarritu did that shit only his last 2 movies, holy SHIT.
>>68015692
Solaris
>>68013697
This
>>68015692
Andrei Rublev or Ivan's Childhood first
>>68012959
>>68015692
Stalker
>>68015692
The Revenant
>>68015770
Tark was /tv/ before there was /tv/
>>68015658
qt kitten desu
>>68015770
>pleb
oh, /tv/
>>68015633
>Wes Anderson
that guy makes happy movies for a certain audience.
If you enjoy one of his movies, you probably enjoy the rest.
There are people who loved Barry Lyndon but hated 2001.
>>68015658
Idk
>>68015885
Their creative goals are very different, but Wes directs his cast & crew like Kubrick. Like Kubrick, his work is immediately recognizable and unmistakeable.
>>68016018
So does Fincher
>>68015658
If you're not counting the '90s auteurs, I honestly don't think we have one.
>>68016018
>director has a recognizable style
>just like kubrick!
>>68015633
>>68016018
>Their films couldn't be more different in content and philosophy, but they have the same obsessive-compulsive approach to framing and visual detail, a consistency of vision that carries through their entire body of work, they both demand a very specific style of performance from their actors.
>his work is immediately recognizable and unmistakeable.
Zack Snyder too
>>68016114
ayyy okay anon. you got me.
>>68015658
Terrence Malick
Paul Thomas Anderson
Christopher Nolan (even though it's probably not true but will happen)
That's about it really
>>68016049
Yup, Fincher fits the model, except that as I said before he doesn't write his own scripts, he's more craftsman than auteur. Not a knock on Fincher, just a distinction
>>68016060
It's not just that he has a "recognizable style." It's the obsession with visual symmetry, the perfectionist production design, the way he guides ALL of his actors into a very meticulously stylized performances. Even the unusual adherence to the 4:3 aspect ratio. They have a hell of a lot in common.
>>68013312
>>68014592
>>68013966
I mean, I love Refn but he has nothing in common with Kubrick. He's more like he new Lynch or Jodorowski.
>>68016248
>Even the unusual adherence to the 4:3 aspect ratio
>although both directors shoot both in widescreen and 4:3
WRONG
>>68016196
How can you mention PTA but not the Coen Brothers?
>>68016510
Fuck I knew I was forgetting someone
>>68015658
Eh can't think of any really.
>>68013558
>Kaufman = Bergman - visuals
Kaufman is all writing, fuckboy.
>>68015658
Kaufman
Jonze
Refn
PTA
>>68015658
alejandro g Inarritu
>>68017834
shit, replied to the wrong post
>>68017872
you're wrong anyways
>>68013558
>Innaritu is Tarkovsky without Catholic theology preaching
TRIGGERED
TRIGGERED ON SO MANY LEVELS
FUCK
