Most Overrated and underrated Directors

What I know about PG from his posts is that he's quite the literalist, so I can see why he likes Nolan's straightforward, exposition based delivery of themes is appealing to him.

__________________
Mubi

I see. Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't really mind that either. Plenty of classic noir films explain everything through witty voice overs. I LOVE that when it's well written.

Nolan just often seems to be a little too self-serious and melodramatic for my tastes. I personally prefer it when wisdoms in movies are served cold (it makes them seem more self-aware and therefore wiser).
I don't mind a few corny film quote moments now and then (I'm a fan of classic cinema, so I can't help but often love those kinds of moments), but Nolan has a tendency to go a little too far sometimes and especially in contexts that don't really seem appropriate to me.

Hey, there's no shame in that. There are also plenty of cinephiles that are much more knowledgeable than for instance me, who still LOVE Nolan films. It's a combination of taste and general cinematic knowledge. You can like him as much as you want, but sometimes it can be enrichening to also acknowledge the downsides of something that you love. That doesn't mean you can't still love it.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

If a true cinephile were to say that, it would actually be the opposite with me, since I imagine that true cinephiles would be articulate enough in cinematic terms and have enough film knowledge to be able to explain why they actually admire Nolan and his work.

But what bothers me is this vast majority of people that you just mentioned. I don't think these people are qualified to say which director is great and which isn't. I watch so many films but I know that there are so many more films that I've yet to see and it's never enough, no matter how many movies I watch per week. But these people don't seem to realize how much there is to be explored in cinema. I feel as though they convince themselves that as long as they've seen all the new releases and the mainstream stuff, they've seen everything.

I recently read a comment on YouTube (I think it was a Shutter Island trailer, or a clip from the film, I'm not sure), which said, "This film looked so good that I thought it was Nolan who made the film and not Scorsese". When someone says that, just how can you take their opinion seriously.

Yeah, but that DVD edition does not show the intended version of the film. Kubrick meant it to be seen entirely in 1.66:1 and it was also theatrically released like that. I believe I have the DVD version of the intended version where the change of aspect ratio is never visible.

Anyway, it was just something I suddenly noticed while watching TDKR for the first time and it did kind of bother me, because it was so purposeless.

I think all movies are critic proof, aren't they?
I think that's just modern Hollywood.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

That may be true - I don't know - but it seems weird that someone as meticulous as Kubrick would choose to have some of his images enlarged, and thus become less distinct, in the final release print of his baby. As you know, most screens pre-Kubrick were about 1.33:1, but with the advent of widescreen photography, the new theatres built wider screens. A by-product of this is that if Dr. Strangelove was shown on a wider screen (or most screens for that matter), you'd never see the difference in the aspect ratio while watching the movie. It would show up above and below the screen. But the blown-up image would look less-clear. On a DVD, you're stuck with how they center the image, but at least it's always as sharp as intended. Another thing about different screen sizes, which may or may not be a result of different aspect ratios, is that at a theatre in the '70s, you could often see the boom mic at the top of the screen in a movie. For whatever reason, the filmmakers thought it was OK as filmed - they probably thought the film would be centered in projector so that part would actually be shown above the screen (and therefore unseen). Now, some DVDs, streams and cable movies show these films, and lo and behold, there's the boom mic. Sorry for the segue. "We now return control of your television to you."

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It's funny how people hate Christopher Nolan for no reason .... He Have minimum 3 masterpiece in bank and he got the best interpretation of ''Batman''

__________________
''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

Noone hates him and practically everyone has given plenty of valid reasons in this thread that explain why he is generally overrated.

good point

how can someone be overrated when he got at least 4 Masterpieces in his last 7 films ? I clearly don't understand your logic

Who says it was meant to be realistic? You really think that a couple of high school babes wearing pink balaclavas robbing shops and mouth-raping gangsta wannabe with pistol barrels was trying to be a realistic picture? And who really thinks that these girls killing many gangstas is unrealistic? I put it in a wrong way. It is, but why is it a bad thing? You don't mind your favourite action movie showing one guy destroying many opponents in melee combat. Besides, you don't have to take every freakin' scene literally. You really think that Polish cavalry riding German tanks in Wajda film is realistic and shows truth rather than a symbol?

And I can understand that a teenager watching the movie that more or less accusses young people of being like the characters in the movie may have that "I'm not like that! I feel offended!" feel, but sometimes when I observe my peers I don't think the movie is far from truth. There's a certain amount of rotten people among teenagers and the thing that the film exaggerates it (or not) shouldn't really be a thing to love it or hate it.

I hated the characters, but loved the movie. Now f*cking what?!

Nolan is overrated. That's true. So is Tarantino. They are both decent directors. Tarantino is much better, but also rips off everything - actually I don't care that much But hell, people watch Django and say "wow what a great idea, Tarantino is a genius! I've never seen such a western!" and they haven't seen the original Django nor any other spaghetti and think it's Tarantino's idea. -_- Then they watch Kill Bill and same thing happens, but they never seen Lady Snowblood. It's not the thing that they like Tarantino flicks, I like some of 'em myself, but the fact they're ignorant enough to think he's a genius and came up with everything himself, while in fact he rips off most of the stuff from kitsch films. But he's good, anyways.

OK let's say only Nolan is overrated. He makes alright action flicks and people who's only seen even worse action flicks cream over him. I always tell them to watch Bergman or Tarkovsky, or at least Leone, whose films or more in 'action' department (well, more than these arthouse directors, anyway) and they say it's boring and they never heard about these directors. And here comes a big facepalm. They didn't hear about 'em. They say they're boring. Never heard. Say boring. NEVER. BORING. Well, it's not easy to be more sophisticated and art-sensitive than the others. (jk) Oh wait, Nolan made a pretty good flick and it's Memento! The rest is decent at best!

The Rock is a movie I really liked back when I watched it when it was on TV a long time ago. Cage and Connery always were actors I liked and back then when I was a kid I dug this kind of action flicks. Transformers on the other hand I disliked. The Armageddon and Island are even worse.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

__________________
Through the darkness of future past
The magician longs to see
One chants out between two worlds:
Fire walk with me.

I'm using it to mean fostering little or no productive dialogue between different viewpoints, in which case I'm inclined to say no.

Yeah, you clearly don't.

i don't think you really understand logic in general.

Tarantino is very different from Nolan, mainly because Nolan isn't as gifted as a filmmaker or as passionate about filmmaking. The only reason you could say Tarantino is overrated is because his films are very popular and each of his new releases instantly becomes a hit, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to consider him overrated. Even his fans never claim that his films are works of art (from what I've read anyways), but they're almost flawless examples of themselves, although he rips off other films. Tarantino even himself admitted that he steals from every film ever made, and he is not ashamed to admit that. He's a true cinephile and his love for cinema is reflected in his work. Thanks to him, and his influences which he made very clear, I got to explore directors such as Leone, Godard et al.

Nolan, on the other hand, his films are just way too empty. They're not inspired and they don't have the power to inspire. With Nolan it's an entirely different case, his avid fanbase is convinced that his films are unlike anything ever to hit the big screen, and no matter how much you try, you cannot convince them otherwise. Just look at the responses of a certain Nolan devotee here on this thread, and you'll see what I mean.

There is no need to be condescending guyz come on.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

but i love being condescending

Not unless he directed it four years before he was born, he hasn't.
Well, people who think he's directed 7 masterpieces would be overrating him then, wouldn't they? Or, maybe, people like me, who don't think he's directed any. Not a hater, don't care about the guy one way or another, but if someone asked if he'd directed a masterpiece, I'd answer "no".

So critical analysis then and not just the generic term critic, meaning reviewer/critical reviewer? That's valid, but then, the audience you're talking about is tiny, as not only is that just a small number of people who'd care enough about what those critics thought, but also, you then have to have people of that mind, who'd not see the film themselves because of that critic(s). Does that even apply to anyone on this site? To you? I wouldn't have thought so.

I love it to, but I prefer to be condescending to other that might get the condescension and can answer lol.