Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

I've noticed there's always higher opinions of Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, MCU and other blockbuster (except a few exceptions) with general audience and enthusiast compared to cinephiles.

What do you think? I've sen plenty of hate towards TDKR, Endgame etc back in the day

I think you can be a cinephile and not be a snob. Although I’ll also admit people who aren’t snobs are probably less likely to refer to themselves as “cinephiles”. I am one in the sense that I was brought up on high quality classics films, Cecil B. DeMille, silent films and blah, blah, blah, but I love blockbusters and horror even more. Though I’m sure some nerdier people will think, How dare she even consider she might be worthy of a cinephile’s title?

In short, OF COURSE some of them do.

But then I do hate Marvel just because… I don’t know, all these green and furry and winged and hammer-wielding people in one space are just a bit too much.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Depends on the blockbuster. Movies should absolutely be fun. There's a reason Ebert included Star Wars, Raiders, and Back to the Future in his Great Movies list. Movies do a lot of things and blockbusters, like any film, can be great. I would think a real cinephile would take each film on its individual merits.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Why would someone "hate" this type of films:

http://www.dvd-covers.org/d/241081-3...n_full_001.jpg

https://dvdcover.com/wp-content/uplo...ar-950x638.jpg


https://dvdcover.com/wp-content/uplo...sk-950x529.jpg

I think it's probably some "hipster" edgelord mentality, i can get not liking something but hate, lol, are you serious?

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Yes, cinephiles appreciate blockbusters like other films. Except that blockbusters can be great or awful movies. They can be analyzed the same way, to show artistic prowess or shortcomings. Spielberg or McTiernan movies are praised for the same reasons why Michael Bay movies are penned.

I often mention the CineFix youtube channel, which I appreciate for their in-depth analyses and the way they treat all genres of movies on the same level. There's also the nice CinemaWin channel which points out qualities in the cheesiest blockbusters.

I'm a terrifyingly snobbish person, which means that a movie can often tire me just by its promotion and omnipresence in medias and public discourses, in which case it can take ages until I come around to watch it and give it its chance (once the noise dies off). But even this means that I enjoy blockbusters after a certain amount of "buffer time". And the snobbishest cinephiles you'll meet will always praise old movies that were blockbusters in their time.

Good films are good films. A lot of different independent factors determine a film's success (star value, marketing, cultural symbiosis, target audience, accessibility, genre, quality, etc). Cinephiles just focus on some of these. Success isn't always deserved, nor always undeserved.

Ugh, just those movie posters scream, extra greasy curly fries....Though Inception doesn't belong in that group, it's a bit better.

I've seen a lot more "praise" and balanced opinions towards Raimi's Spider-Man compared to MCU's films and "Prestige, Memento" compared to Inception and The Dark Knight Rises though.

So i think, people save the ones that are more tighter and safe rather than epic and loved by the general audience? That's what it seems to me.

It is no "cool" to like Avengers or Inception anymore? ^^

Of course Inception is a lot better, but the other two are imho two great films.

A bit. It's not great though. It's just a live action Paprika without the heart. :).

All the MI movies are incredible. I've never seen one that didn't blow me away. I also love the John Wick films. As I said above, I think Inception is good but not great - it pales to Paprika.

I haven't seen a single Marvel movie besides Avengers. I just haven't been interested, but that will change soon. I'm not closed to the idea, but it just seems like a huge time investment when there are so many other great things to watch.

Yes they do.

Inception and Paprika are different films -- one is an heist film, that revolves on two people "changing" their life, and the other is a mystery one.

Not like it matters, since Inception just blows it away out the water.

It's like comparing Mario to Alex Kidd.

Being said, what's your "issue" with MCU films?

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

I consider myself a cinephile and I love the MCU as much as I love Last Year At Marienbad.
TDKR sucks, though.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

I would imagine most 'hate' that is directed towards these films, is really more annoyance directed towards the fanboy mentality that props them up, and seemingly can't deal with legitimate criticism against them.

There is not some shadowy cabal determined to spew hatred towards them. There is no mental gymnastics necessary in dismissing them. Some people just don't like them. It's that simple.

Maybe the fact that they are so uninteresting to be thought of as 'hate proof' by some, could be one reason not to like them. Maybe they play it too safe. Maybe to some, they are just boring as ****.

And, no, 'cinephiles' do not avoid blockbuster movies. They just generally don't talk about the ones that leave no lasting impression.

Haha, ooh Lordy, now I fear what I’ve been getting into in the other thread… 😂

I agree with you on this one.

I love movies but not sure I'd use the term cinephile. Anyhoozle, I'm game for a good blockbuster but I must admit that I haven't been able to trust Will Smith since Independence Day. Harsh life lesson, that one, to learn to pace my expectations and to approach each movie on its own merit and efforts. Might as well throw Jurassic Park and its spawn into that group. I try to reflect on what I want vs expect vs what's actually being presented and whether what is GIVEN aligns with what was marketed. Or something like that. With the example of ID4, I (think) I was marketed a dark sci-fi alien invasion and got.... a lot of camp, IMO. Similar vibe with Jurassic Park, for me. No aliens of course ;)

Side note tangent thingy: I think the MCU run and maybe the Batman reboot with Bale are mixed bags and probably deserve more criticism than my rant on ID4. The only real problem with ID4 was what I expected based on its marketing at the time. Had I known it was going to be what it was, I would have likely enjoyed it more (though I still probably wouldn't watch it again) in that it at least was consistent with itself throughout. Completely implausible action and death-defying escapes? Eh, that's goofy as hell but whatever. That's this fiction so I can deal with it. I just didn't expect that. I mean, didn't I see the White House friggin explode!? Death was EVERYWHERE!!!! But it wasn't. MCU/BM stuff, in contrast, presented ridiculousness in a somewhat serious tone. I could buy it and it felt anchored and approachable and reasonable---at least for what it presented itself to be. I think both did a pretty good job of that, but in doing so I think the contrast of that consistency against spikes of at times awkward character motivation, plot devices, or whatever made those moments stand out more from the movie's average. I felt that with Nolan's Dunkirk and (OMG I don't even want to type this word) Annihilation. dfgafga gfjanfhg a....

Rough edges become more apparent, IMO, when the product is generally so well made. If I buy a coffee table from Walmart and it's kind rough in structure and finish, eh, fine. It's Walmart and I went in with realistic expectations. I mean, table leg mounts don't align with the metal bracketing, bolts are too short, and there's a massive gouge on the side where a loading lift rubbed against the packaging in a warehouse. Whatever. Its average is pretty low quality to begin with so none of these issues stand out as major problems, to me. If I buy a similar table from a local custom, hand-made furniture store where attention to such details are important and marketed, then finding a subtle rough edge (even if that edge is far better of a defect than the multitude of defects found in the previous table, and then only just the ONE defect at that) would stir much more frustration in me and would hold my attention much longer in comparison simply for my level of expectation and the original presentation of quality.

Now don't go off shouting I'm saying Nolan's Batman is like custom, hand-built sculpted work of furniture art. It's not. I'm only using that as example to reinforce what I am actually trying to say: Batman is a well-packaged movie. As such, and because I perceive a level of professionalism in its acting, directing, staging, etc., I then begin to expect a consistent level of standard throughout. When it misses that bar, I notice it more and call it out for presenting itself as more. Sort of. I have a more difficult time finding those inconsistencies with other movies that people might consider to be more cinephiley. It's just a different level. Those movies seem to already start at that "other" movies' bar (shh, I don't want them to hear me talking smack about them) and only go up from there. For me, it's harder to find fault at that level as the measures I then use are more philosophical in nature. Not that there is a gouge in the wood, but why this particular wood was selected. Is it a statement on our environment? Is it symbolic of a capitalist society?? Are the legs representations of our mental stability (or lack thereof)? Those would be better suited for conversation than criticism, relative to my objective criticism of say my earlier custom built table. Or worse, the Walmart surfboard.

Hey. None of this is really an active thought process. It's more gut level I guess. I don't want you thinking I'm a nut, sitting in the back row of a theater drawing graphs searching for some S-curve level of balance. Well. I am KINDA doing that, but not quite that bad. Too, it's hard to see the graphing paper and most people frown on flashlights during a movie. hm... I just think all this sort of shows how I approach different movie types. Or at least how I try to. And maybe why you think there's more criticism to one set than another. If a movie is bad, I'll say it's bad. If a movie is good, well, it should have been to begin with I think, so no real need to draw attention to it in criticism? That could be part of it too, iderno.

OK, so I did warn you that that was a tangent. Like that one kid on the news, about turtles? Well, "I like movies." Classics, arthouse, blockbuster, B, straight to DVD, whatever. It's all good. I'd LIKE to think I measure each within its own limitations vs how it is marketed. Loosely speaking. See above, else I have to start in again and repeat it all.

I consider myself a cinephile...and I love horror films. Frankly for me it's the redundant "Oscar" bait films I can't stand. Nothing is worse that to be bored by predictability.


As for Blockbuster films I won't see a bad blockbuster film but an average one..sure who cares I got a stubs membership.

Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
....

I'm not a cinephile...

I consider myself a classic film fan which includes foreign language and silent films.

I don't watch blockbusters or MCU/Marvel stuff...It all looks stupid to me. I 'hate' it because it's being produced while more substantial & serious cinema goes unmade.

Luckily there's so many older classics, that I don't need to watch assembly line movies.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

A lot of older classics are "assembly line movies".

We will never know.

I think animation is much better suited for dream stories and that these two films are proof of that concept. I really enjoyed Inception, I just think Paprika is a much better film. Agree to disagree.

Re MCU, I don't have an issue - did you read my post? I loved Avengers, but there are just so many of these films and I've had other films I wanted to watch more on my list plus it seems like a huge time commitment with so many of these coming out all the time. I will get to them and judge them on their own merits, but I don't have an educated opinion since I haven't seen them.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

People just watch what appeals to them.

I mean if they're classics then by definition that isn't true. There are older films that are bad for sure. Just because something is older doesn't make it better and just because something is newer, does not make it worse. But it can't be denied that these big-budget films are being pumped out on a grinding, crazy, cash-in schedule in a way that is relatively new (at least on this scale). That doesn't mean they are necessarily bad, but since there are already so many amazing films I haven't seen from the past, I tend to prioritize those.

that's GOT to be a Blade Runner reference, huh?

:D

And that's why I love em:p

Perfect answer. Short and to the point.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

In the 1930s Hollywood cranked out 'matinee movies' for kids to watch. These were serial movies like Flash Gordon or b westerns & adventure movies, just over 1 hour long. Some can be fun to watch for nostalgia reasons. But these 'assembly movies' don't hold a candle to something like Gone With The Wind or La Grande Illusion.

I hear this one a lot but I have yet to hear a good example of it being true. I see so many different types of movies year in and year out. What substantial serious cinema is not being produced?

Impossible to know, as it's not being made:p

Spielberg is among my most favorite directors. Many of his best films either had a lot of heart or had a lot of craft put into it (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, E.T, Lincoln, The Color Purple, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Minority Report, Jaws).

Sometimes he seems to be an easy target these days because many of those films are blockbusters, and it upsets those who feel he lacks and artistic integrity simply because he makes a lot of money off of them. As if you can’t do both.

It’s much the same with superhero movies, although with the caveat that outside a few, most wouldn’t be on The same level simply due to opinion. I’m slightly tougher on them.

Superman is one of the best films of the 70’s, for example, and both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were also great films from the aughts. If I were to ever do personal top 100’s of each of the respective decades, they’d find a place in there.

You are stating it as fact, and adding some pretty lofty adjectives. I really don’t understand your answer.

I don’t like very many horror movies. Skip nearly every one. There are a lot more of those each year than MCU movies for sure. Never once have I thought that good movies aren’t being made because of it. The argument baffles me. It’s like saying there aren’t any good restaurants because there is a McDonalds in every town. Please attempt to explain the logic.

What? The Raimi Spider Man films were unloved by the general audience? Sit in the corner, dude.

I don't know about horror films specifically, but there's definitely been a squeeze on medium-budget films over the last 10-15 years as studios have invested more into their mega-budget tentpoles, which takes cash away from other projects and shrinks the production schedule. As they see it, these medium-budget films are the kinds of films that people (kids) no longer watch in the theater and these non-kids (mature audiences) are more frequently opting to watch at home.

I watch whatever I think will be educational for me as an aspiring writer. That includes blockbusters, especially if the director is a big name.

OK, I mean it's impossible to know what type of films producers might have made if the MCU/Marvel, blockbuster & horror craze wasn't so popular... aka profitable. It's like we will never know what might have been if a different president won any of the elections.

To me horror & MCU same thing, mass appeal movies that are made over and over and over again. Good movies are being made too today, but not all movie ideas can be brought to the screen as there's limited time and money. So only a select number of movies get made and often in Hollywood that's the broad appeal, money making movies. But yeah of course there's good films made all the time, especially by indie directors and foreign language directors.

It would be like if McDonalds was so popular that all but a few of the good restaurants in town closed down. More crap food, less good food. And all because crap food is so popular.



*I have to leave for work shortly. I don't want to seem like I was avoiding discussion or anything like that.:)

I like these comic book films in theory. I like to have fun. I don't like the recent trend of using these kinds of films as short-hand psychotherapy for middle-aged men. I don't like watching a comic book movie and looking over at some fat fanboy crying, "My dad didn't pay attention either."

Wal-Mart may be the better example here, as it has had a more tangible effect on closing local mom&pop common goods stores.

I would definitely like to see some stats on that. If the blockbusters are bringing in big money it seems to me there would be more money t fund additional projects. Definitely open to being wrong.

Studios like A24 seem like a good example that independent film is alive and well. Again some statistics saying otherwise would be interesting.

I think McDonalds is the better example because Walmart is selling the same product as the mom and pop. So if I have a choice to buy a bottle of soda for $1 at Walmart as opposed to $2 at the mom and pop, I do.

If I am trying to decide between a cheap hamburger and a steak, I have to choose one or the other.

I know you were being a tad facetious here but I can’t resist……
Hey, “fat fanboys” have feelings too, you know. We shouldn’t criticize them for their emotions simply because the movie reaches them on some emotional level.*

More seriously, it’s meant to evoke a certain emotion from that very fan base, which is fine, I’ve enjoyed plenty of the super hero films myself to varying degrees. I’ve stated my favorites (Superman, Nolan’s first two Batman films) because they didn’t pander to their fan base but elevated the material in a mature way. And as much as I’ve enjoyed the sub genre, it has now sadly saturated the market. It’s time to ease back on the phases.

* Please note I am not fat nor a fanboy.

I find that the people in my life that love the MCU think I hate it and those that hate it think I love it. Guess I need to pick a lane. Feels too much like how talking politics goes for me.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

I was never able to gain my cinephile card

It fundamentally comes down to the idea that the modern blockbuster is built from the ground up to favour commercial appeal over sheer artistry, which tends to result in films that are lacking in unique cinematic qualities or worthwhile substance because the powers that be are willing to take shortcuts to guarantee a perpetually profitable investment with minimal risk to that venture. That's the reason the MCU has become the current poster child for this phenomenon - it's turned out 24 films in the space of 13 years (for comparison, it took James Bond 53 years to reach the same number) that have become such perpetual cinematic events to the point where it doesn't even matter if the films themselves end up being good because people will pay just to keep up with the franchise anyway (which is true of older franchises, but it's reached saturation point with a cinematic universe involving multiple overlapping sub-franchises). If you've never seen an MCU film before, how well would [i]Infinity War[/i hold up on its own? At least Mission: Impossible at least has the novelty of seeing Tom Cruise do all manner of death-defying stunts for real even though the films are otherwise fairly flimsy. Even Inception can be said to suffer because of how it stretches itself between commerce and art - it's arguably smarter than the average blockbuster, but it's already been established that that's not a particularly high bar to clear (and there's also the matter of the usual Nolan criticisms about his...debatable effectiveness at actually handling human characters and emotions between the intricate setpieces and exposition of his films, which is liable to weaken his films more than anything else).

In any case, people can just not like it. Like I keep saying, even the tastiest peach in the world will still taste bad to someone who hates peaches.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Yeah, sometimes. I have to admit that comix and superheroes are pretty much used up as far as I'm concerned, but otherwise, in non-plague times I do go to blockbusters, stand in line and buy snacks, even when I do expect to do a lot of eye-rolling. Sometimes they're fun, sometimes it's just good to get out and mingle with the Plebeians and sometimes I like to see what James Bond is up to.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

To me, being a cinephile is just about loving movies. There's a way to watch movies that is cinephile-ish, regardless of what you're watching, and you can be a basic bitch after having watched everything Kurosawa, Tarkovsky and Kieslowsky directed. If all a person does is watch movies one after the other like a checklist, I would find less cinephile cred in them than someone who studies and analyses all the aspect of less prestigious movies.

After watching tons and tons of movies anyway, you learn to find your own groove and you're definitely going to start enjoying what a lot of people would consider trash.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Do cinephiles dream of blockbuster sheep?

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

I don't use that term for myself.. I just say I love movies. I don't even use the word "film" or "motion picture". I've never used the term, "filmmaker" either.


I only go into a movie if I think it's going to be good. I don't want to deprive myself of pleasure, and if I hate a movie after 30 minutes, I turn it off, and wasted time, and probably won't see a movie for a while.


I seem to like and seek out movies in between. Not blockbusters, but not rare and obscure movies, either.



If you look at my Top 10 movies, you can decide if any of them are blockbusters? The most popular movie would be "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" I guess.



If I see a great movie that also was very commercial, I don't think to myself how the director must have diluted his message for the sake of sales, but instead, I look at is as a triumph for good taste. Hasn't been a triumph in a long time, though, unfortunately.

The Spider-Man DVD lays open on its back, its case melting in the hot sun, trying to close itself, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.

Expect Rock to chime in to remind us all of Nightbeast.

Is that a dig at Joker by any chance?

I know I have hit out at this criticism again and again, and people are understandably tired of it, but why should he handle human emotion if he doesn’t want to? He’s doing fine with his high-concept cold commercial stuff, why do people assume the “human touch” is needed? There’s always, what’s-her-name, Greta Gerwig for that sort of thing, but Nolan is going for spectacle and doesn’t want to focus on emotions, surely that can’t be judged as an objective shortcoming - it’s just an authorial preference.

I, for one, have been exhausted and sick of “emotions” and “humanity” and cheesiness in film for about a decade, so I find Nolan’s sleek matter-of-factness very appealing, and I’m sure there are others like me. It’s one thing to say you personally prefer more human touch-driven films, but I think, if anything, Nolan shows it’s not necessary to prioritise people over ideas to consistently turn out successful work. I am very well aware that the word “emotions” doesn’t have anything to do with characters in a film “acting emotional”, but I feel there’s too much of an emphasis put on that. Solipsistic films have a place on Earth too, and, if anything, solipsism is exactly what Inception is about, seeing as it’s about people trapped in their increasingly private dreams, so that approach fits its tone. I don’t even disagree with the “criticism” that Nolan doesn’t like to address human emotions, but I don’t quite see why it’s a criticism in the first place.

"Do cinephiles watch Nightbeast" is a question I'd like answered.

Masterpiece.

Rock will be pleased

Now all restaurants are Taco Bell.

I think it's less that he doesn't address human emotion at all and more that he tends to fumble the bag when he does. The best blockbusters are able to underline their spectacle with well-crafted displays of the humanity underneath - Jaws was credited as the first blockbuster and one would argue that it holds up at least as much due to its characters and their definition/interplay as its monster-movie thrills (possibly even more so). Conversely, it's not like Nolan is thoroughly incapable of pulling it off - I'd argue his better films (Memento, The Prestige, Inception) are the ones that have a thorough grasp on how to balance emotion with spectacle (especially considering the comparatively small scale of the first two and the latter managing to make good use of his self-consciousness to build a narrative, especially compared to how he handled similar emotional ground to far lesser effect in Interstellar). I've certainly seen defences of Nolan that will argue for his work on emotional grounds rather than handwave the ostensible lack of it as a necessary sacrifice for the sake of spectacle, but what's the point in building these blown-out high-minded epics if the people within aren't really worth caring about one way or another? I mean, we just got Tenet and that's a pretty good argument for why you've got to be careful when trying to balance the "human element" with whatever outlandish cinematic concepts you want to put to film next.

Pleased with the turn of events on this page.


Now if we can do the same thing for Body Girls...


*gets banned*

I disagree with what you have said, but no problem.

What I mean is that they seem to be more of a filmmaker project compared to mcu films

At the end of the day, it's just... a film.

So why bother go all the extreme analytical criticism, just take things for what they are lol.

Leave the fat shaming out of this, please. Between this post and MKS's constant name calling ("crazy" "fat Ethel), a troubling trend seems to have emerged.

This is a fair point. I agree regarding Jaws that it succeeds because we care. But why wouldn’t there be a different way of doing things?

I think I find the subject a challenging one for personal reasons. I don’t do emotion with any degree of success and prefer it this way, so I sympathise with people who “fumble the bag when [they do]” very much indeed.

I like Tenet. I don’t find it particularly outlandish, once one knows what’s going on. It is a little overwhelming until you wrap your head around it, yes. But then, it is designed for multiple viewings, so nothing new there. I don’t think it is unsuccessful at all. If it doesn’t quite succeed, it’s because it’s a bit too convoluted and disorienting, in my view, not for lack of people we can care about. The Protagonist is certainly bland and brother here nor there, but, given that he’s aptly named “The Protagonist”, I think that was the idea, he’s an everyman.

I see how one can approach a story like this by going, “Okay, I want to make a film about time moving backwards. What kind of character can I place inside that kind of story?” Of course he’s working from concept, not character. Films like The Adjustment Bureau ostensibly manage to have a reasonably high-concept premise and human chemistry, but I would say it’s the concepts that suffer in that comparison.

I would never disagree with the point that Inception and Memento are much better, more well-rounded films than the rest of Nolan’s output. You’re probably right that the “best blockbusters” still manage both emotion and spectacle, but I’m the kind of person that genuinely loves Primer with all my heart, every low-key bit of it, so I guess brainy understated sci-if with minimal “human touch” is my brand.

But I would also cautiously state that nothing Spielberg has done (and I adore his work) has the high-concept complexity of Interstellar and Tenet. The ideas are much simpler. Maybe that’s the way to go, simplify the idea and focus on people more. But something inside me resents that.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

They should. Not just because some blockbusters are actually good, but because even if you hate all of them, the negative space of failed movies can help you appreciate the shape of the good ones.

I also think mass media is kind of an art form unto itself, and I think a lot of film lovers miss the artistic skill required to communicate at larger scales, but that's a subtler thing to argue.

Maybe because that's what we enjoy just like you enjoy popcorn flicks?

I’m regularly on here defending the likes of Bay, Snyder and the MCU while also celebrating the figures of avant garde and art cinema, from Varda to Ozu.

I love movies and don’t see the point of limiting myself. Popular art can often be the most interesting to view through a sociological lens ala principles established in Kracauer’s From Caligari to Hitler.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Do food critics ever eat candy bars?

Not unless they're from Willy Zumbo's chocolate factory.

I think that something that has happened is that bigger and bigger blockbusters are being released into theaters, while films that we'd normally think of smaller (or middle-level) budget are being put onto streaming services.

But at the same time, I think that the barriers between making art and getting it in front of a large audience are lower than ever. Streaming has become an interesting middle-ground between the movie theater and direct-to-video. I think that the overall effect is that more people have opportunities to make and share films, so I think it's a net positive.

The complaint is that Nolan himself introduces these human elements and then his handling of them is a bit clunky.


As for the question of the thread, a cinephile is someone who loves film. I would hope that most people who consider themselves movie-lovers have an open mind and are willing to check out different films. But at the same time, everyone has their own taste. You can think of yourself as someone who loves film and also admit that Westerns or horror films or big blockbusters leave you a bit cold.

Guys, I'm not fat-shaming. I'm blubber-shaming. Big difference. Some people just look fatter when they cry. Maybe it's the shruken 25 year old vintage Iron Man T-shirt. Frankly, I'm afraid to ask.


Alas, I was the only one crying after Joker. The existential sadness of watching your money burn before your very eyes and knowing that you allowed it to happen.

I know, but I think he does his best. He has as few of them as possible anyway, if he had any less, people would probably think he is an Android.

I actually laughed at that, which is sad. Blame the stress.

He really introduces relatively few of them as far as I remember, save for dead wives and faraway faceless kids. The interpersonal relationships between characters are next to non-existent, this was most apparent with Catherine/Protagonist.

The one relationship that I think he pulled off well is Arthur and Cobb in Inception.

I think "filmmaker projects" are called "films". I would agree that the Raimi films, at least the first two, are better than most MCU films, but they also set box office records at the time, if I remember correctly. They were superlative blockbusters. Odd that you would exclude them from that category.

This is the guy who claimed it was ridiculous to ever hate a movie, after starting a thread about how much he hated Blue Velvet.


Consistency is probably not in the forecast here.

You wouldn't get it

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

Can we just change Nolan's last name to "clunky"?

Wouldn’t be particularly interested, just thinking people should attempt to make sense, but each to his own. I come from a very cliquey family, so the “you wouldn’t get it” is familiar and feels tired. It’s so fashionable to snub people who don’t hate Nolan that one wonders what would happen if one did the same to Kelly Reichardt lovers, or something.

I laughed way too hard at this.
I remember you mentioning f when you first joined that you weren’t a fan of Joker, so no surprise at your tears.
I like Joker, but the films kind of unravels the last 20 minutes or so, that is, anything after De Niro.

It's fine that he does his best. Most people probably do their best at whatever their role is. But people can still criticize him if his best is not up to par.

I was actually being snobby about grown men who cry at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy 2. :o

You unfeeling monster!

It would be a bit too much to get into all of that in this thread, but no, I didn't care for Joker at all.

That Chris Pratt. Is he a hunk, or a teddy bear? As long as he's big and stupid!

Hard disagree, here. To each their own, of course, but I feel he has done well with his human elements, with a few exceptions here and there. Tenet for example.

I'm actually not that bothered by his character dynamics.

I was clarifying that the criticism of Nolan isn't "Why doesn't he do more with the humanity side of things?!", the criticism is "Nolan tries to do the humanity thing and sometimes he's not so good at it."

Understood. My apologies

Well, at least we've answered the question "Do cinephiles reconcile after a very low-stakes misunderstanding?"

TRUE CINEPHILES DON'T !

Ugh! It was a trap the whole time! You people are monsters!

Fine.

I've never seen a "movie". I just read the plot synopsis on IMDb and a handful of hot takes on Twitter and then I post. My favorite plot synopses is Throw Momma From the Train.

*hangs head in shame*

I also like directors from Hitchcock to Cronenberg to Russo Brothers to Leone etc.

I wouldn’t say a critically acclaimed film which is in all best of the year and decade list and has won 4 Oscar is a popcorn flick tbh.

Understood

Why not? I'm not going to act like I'm above every single film that's just trying to be fun (just look at my avatar) but it's not like I have an obligation to give them a pass either just because they have simpler goals in mind.

I mean, there's certainly potential for a film like Tenet to work in terms of executing a convoluted concept (albeit one that still just boils down to "people can move in reverse" and the kind of time-travel plot where people have to work around their own past exploits like Back to the Future Part II), but it just seems too inconsistent - "don't understand it, just feel it" seems at odds with countless scenes of exposition, for instance. I've also never thought of Interstellar as being particularly complex either - there have been other narratives that dealt in time dilation and relativity prior to it, but it arguably gets more credit on account of having the wider exposure afforded by its blockbuster status (plus its whole emotional core of a father losing touch with his children feels like an expansion on the protagonist's motivation in Inception, though that is where he stretches himself too thin - Inception at least comes across as an attempt at interrogating his "dead wife" cliché).

This cinephile does, because it doesn't have to be an either/or dilemma between "arthouse" films and mainstream blockbusters; you can be interested in both. I mean, I just made a two hour drive yesterday to go see The Green Knight, and I'll probably end up seeing The Suicide Squad when I get the chance for the same reason I did Knight (because they're both getting good reviews, after all), and I'm tired of this "us versus them" mentality I constantly see in this, and seemingly every other discourse online, for that matter. That being said though, I still lean more towards the arthouse side of things, because by the nature of that style, it's where you tend to the more unique, challenging experiences on film, and you're not being a "film snob" if you hold genuinely heartfelt critiques of the lack of ambition in, say, Marvel movies in general, or if you feel that one multi-billion dollar studio gobbling up the competition, essentially holding a monopoly over the American film industry, and making movies that genuinely try to challenge audiences less common (even in popular genres like Superhero movies, like what Fox did with Logan) is a bad thing for the artform.

Re: Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?
 

what is a cinephiles?

Sure, that was pretty ridiculous. I guess he was worried about sacrificing the spectacle element and ending up with a Primer-type “explainer” film, which would kind of be the opposite - “Understand it once you’ve seen the online time travel diagrams and watched this 10+ times and don’t expect to feel it.” And then he did too much explaining himself :)

Yeah, I agree about Interstellar. But also, that does depend on what we mean by “complex”; Primer is also about winning the lottery, is it, through time travel - but what sets it apart is its unique focus on the mechanics and the nerdy, boring science over any other concerns. Time dilation and quantum physics in film are not new, true, but do they get used in action often? I would say not so much, prior to Nolan.

So, I think Nolan’s stuff is still a bit more investigative when it comes to the science than Back to the Future, but I would argue that all time travel films come down to saving a dead person (changing the past), preventing a future apocalypse or making money via knowing the future.

I’ve always thought that Inception epitomises Nolan’s “dead wives problem” instead of critiquing it, so that’s an interesting thought. Anyway, I tend to think he’s just not good at writing women (hence the lack of female protagonists, I wouldn’t even 100 per cent count Chastain in Interstellar as one).

That’s what it boils down to: I think it’s reasonable for artists to steer clear of things/themes/character types they’re “not good at”, otherwise you get something that feels thoroughly fake and wooden, and who wants that? You can embrace that this isn’t your strong side, I guess, and “learn on the job” as you practice writing female protagonists and whatnot. But that will make you more vulnerable to criticism, because you won’t do a good job.

So, I do understand the logic behind just not doing it, and I’d argue that if he literally had no women in his films, he’d be better off. Would make a curious self-imposed constraint, like the postmodern writers avoiding a letter. How do I write an engaging film with 0 women (hence no dead wives, or whatever else he’s bad at)?

Looking forward to Christopher Nolan's upcoming movie in which the protagonist does a lot of stunts, listens to a bit of exposition from Michael Caine and broods about the death of his husband.

Hahah, thank you for cheering me up on a ****ty morning! I’m pretty sure he’d smash that brief, actually.

(Look at my avatar) and top 10 and you’ll find that i like them both.

I know some people have higher standards but what matters is the execution or the overall product.

I think it's more that it just weighs down the film unnecessarily. It's like he wants to trust viewers but thinks (feels?) has to hedge his bets anyway and the whole thing comes across as overlong with a sluggish middle (especially coming off Dunkirk, which I wasn't big on but still appreciated its taut 100m runtime next to the 160+ bloat of TDKR or Interstellar).

Hideaki Anno's Gunbuster had what I considered to be a very effective narrative use of time dilation within an action-oriented context but it's in a 30-year-old robot anime so I'm aware it's not going to have as wide an audience right from the jump. I think I also just bristle at the idea that Nolan's films end up being complex on a technical level when they still make the effort to simplify things as much as possible anyway (like using the pen-through-paper explanation for a wormhole that also featured in Event Horizon, for instance).

I put it that way because in his prior films (and at least one or two subsequent films) the dead wives really have just acted as motivating factors for the protagonists, and while that's arguably true of Mal from Inception, it's worth noting that she not only gets to be more of a character than the others but that she ends up serving as more of an antagonist than anyone else in the film (but not necessarily a one-dimensional villain either).

A true cinephile watches all kinds of movies but it doesn't mean they cream over hacks like Nolan.

Not 100% certain but I'm just assuming it's a person who ****s dogs.

Nolan’s films have won 12 oscars out of 30 nominations (both for technical aspects and quality)

they are all critically acclaimed by professional critics, with many being in their respective best of decade and year lists.

he's gotten countless of awards and 5 Oscar nominations.

Also, many prestigious magazines and aggregators have put him in a fairly solid position in the all time list and one of the best of the decade.

Anyone who knows anything about directing can see that he directs his films well.

But somehow, a random comment in an internet board makes him an incompetent director? Are you serious?

Saying that he's an "hack" like Bay or Snyder is just wrong in any way, shape or form and shows an extreme lack of common sense and objectivity.

Or maybe an aversion, that revolves around extremely subjective "criticism".

Until proven otherwise, most of these people know more about cinema than you, and they are more reliable. I accidentally liked the post but wanted to reply lol.

Films are art.

It is possible for someone to both love art and to really dislike a certain artist.

Stalker after two different viewings, continues to be a film for me. Basically every professional critic (and almost everyone on sites like this one) considers it an all-time great masterpiece.

Does that mean I don't love film? Is my reaction to the film (which is an honest, good faith reaction) "wrong"?

Loving movies doesn't mean bowing down to critical consensus.