Is Paul Thomas Anderson an overrated boring filmmaker?

Despite not being interested by the trailer I tried watching Inherent Vice last night but I had to quit after an hour. The film lost me in the first 15 minutes and I didn't get a full understanding of what was going on. It was just boring talk for the whole hour no action at all apart from a little girl on girl action which just made me want to watch porn instead.


It's funny because Paul Thomas Anderson breaks a big rule for screenwriting which is to show more and tell less and all PTA does in this movie is tell which was boring to try and listen to. I can only concentrate for so much.

I do want to see Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love but apart from that I don't care. I watched the trailers for his other movies and they all boring and don't explain any part of the plot.


I watched a Wes Anderson film as well a few weeks ago that just bored me as well.


I don't get the appeal of these filmmakers.


Are their films enjoyable for casual people? or are they specifically for art nuts?


Am I too dumb to know what good Cinema is? or they are really just boring films that art people convince themselves are good?


.

Yes.

Or at least overrated. I liked Boogie Nights but I have been cold on everything else he has done that I have seen.

I much prefer Wes Anderson to PTA.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Psh, if his name was Rob Schneider I bet you'd love him.

yes he is overrated imo but not boring... in other hands Terrence Malick is extreme boring

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

I will second the distaste for Malick.

To expand on my last post and to answer one of the OP's questions.

Yes, PTA is definitely going to appeal much more to cinema lovers then the casual audience. He is an uber serious filmmaker more then say Michael Bay who is going for box office bucks and entertainment. But even then cinephiles are not guaranteed to like him.

As for Wes Anderson I was cold on his works at first, but I learned to love his style with The Grand Budapest Hotel.

In fairness, Inherent Vice is a weird film that doesn't necessarily work even for people who are fans of other PTA films. I'd probably say that Boogie Nights is his most accessible movie and as good a starting point as any. Punch-Drunk Love plays out like an off-kilter Sandler vehicle so there's no telling how that'd work for you. If your issue is that he tells more than he shows, then There Will Be Blood is definitely his most "showy" film.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Rob Schneider movies do much better at the box office.


That's got to sting.

^How?

The sting of a comfortable, soothing bubblebath while listening to Enya.

I would rather rewatch Magnolia then watch a movie with Schneider as the lead. Keep him where he is best. In small supporting roles.

Yeah I don't mind a bit of long dialogue as long as it's entertaining and it's balanced with good action.


Like Quentin Tarantino films.

Ok I don't want to go off topic.

I loved There Will Be Blood but was let down by The Master and only made it 30 minutes in to Inherent Vice.. 30 minutes is about my cut off time when I am feeling absolutely nothing

No he is not.

But I will second Iro that Inherent Vice is a weird film and you can easily end up liking his other works while hating that one. I'm a huge PTA fan, but I cant bring myself to love Inherent Vice...

Also, you asked if you were too dumb to know good cinema. No you aren't. But... I'm sure, with time, you'll learn and understand cinema a lot better. You never stop learning and seeing new sides of cinema. No matter how many films you watch really... so maybe in time you will like PTA and Wes Anderson. For now you are doing the right thing; exploring cinema and trying your hand at something that you may not like now - or perhaps never. But trust me that you're learning with every movie you watch.

I'll definitely say check out some more PTA and Wes Anderson. I'll recommend Boogie Nights and Royal Tennenbaums for starters.

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the greatest talents of his generation and is in no way boring or overrated.

If you're simply looking for some animalistic stimuli like sex or action, you will find that these are only sporadically spread over his filmography, except for Boogie Nights, which has a lot of that if you want to perceive films on that level.

A frequent phenomenon with film viewers who don't seem to be able to enjoy the work of some of the most acclaimed directors is that they try to cure their insecurity as a result of that by saying that the director is "overrated" and the director's films are "really just boring films that art people convince themselves are good".

Don't be that kind of person, because, to tell you the honest truth, it comes across as very distasteful and narrow-minded to the people who actually do have a truthful passion for the director(s) you are labeling like that. Especially if these accusations are made after only watching 15 minutes of his work.


Anyway, I would second Iro's advice to watch Boogie Nights first. That film should cause some more goodwill.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

^ I second that.

Also, it is a little bit obnoxious to name a thread with such a disingenuous question. It's ok to want validation for your opinions, but the honest thing to do would be to assert you opinion in a more direct way.

Also, be careful with questions like :

If noone can infer that you are, indeed, dumb, it certainly makes you come across as a Philistine (which, in my humble opinion, is the new snub in the age of the internet).

__________________
In my own land, I’m in a far domain
[...]
Welcomed gladly, and spurned by everyone

The Royal Tenenbaums, one of my fave films of all time. I wouldn't let other "film snobs" diminish your open mind for a Wes Anderson film, if that is indeed one of the issues. As for PTA, I could take or leave him these days. His later films are a bit too overly "sophisticated" for my blood. I'd recommend Sydney (Hard Eight) as a good starting point, then Boogie Nights and then Magnolia.

Wes Anderson's debut "Bottle Rocket" is a sweet little film with some real choice moments and hilarity. It doesn't focus on set design and other superficialities like his later films do, though WA is a brilliant stylist and always seems to retain a good dose of humor.

I don't know how you can even make this thread, not having seen Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, and Punch Drunk Love.

Yep.

I gave a nice and constructive answer, but if I had to be more direct about it I would also say there is a lot of things wrong about this thread and how it is presented...

First off it sounds like you haven't even seen any PTA films apart from that hour of Inherent Vice. How can you judge a filmmaker so quickly and even further sink your own situation by also saying you have seen ONE Wes Anderson that also bored you and youve already written both directors off. Do you have a low attention span? It sure seems like it since you wanted "action" in a dramedy movie... and you see two girls go at it and you want to watch porn? It's this a regular thing for you? Seeing a sex scene and immediately wanting to watch porn? That's a little weird...

Also, you said PTA broke "the rules of screenwriting". What rules?? There are no rules in cinema. And if the above was in fact a rule a whole lot of movies would be "wrong" and Terrence Malick would be entirely out of a job... Cinema is all about breaking rules man.

Anyways. My best advice is still this: watch a whole lot of films. And wait with the commenting along the way if they are as frustrated and empty as this...