Directors you still haven't seen

You do realize that the Coen brothers don't just make comedies, right?
Also I wouldn't call Tarantino's films comedies.

__________________

I'll be honest, I stopped reading after you compared the Coen Brothers to Family Guy and South Park. They are nothing like either one of those shows, and that is almost disrespectful. Happiness is an emotion, and when I watch something like The Hudsucker Proxy, The Big Lebowski, or O Brother, Where Art Thou? I feel happy. I feel really happy. Then you also have No Country For Old Men, which happens to be their best film. I don't know exactly how that's anything like an episode of Family Guy.

This is not a knock on Miyazaki, who is awesome, but a defense of the Coen Brothers. And even though I am not constantly on about Tarantino or the Coens, I am just as big of a fan of theirs as you are of Miyazaki.

I also felt really happy after I watched the Big Lebowski, but it wasn't nearly as great as an experience as watching Scott Tenorman Must Die. So yes, I believe that Scott Tenorman Must Die is possibly greater work of art than anything the Cohen Brothers ever done, for me at least. Anyway, the guys who make South Park are quite brilliant in their own way and they also seek the same type of emotion as the Coens do. Family Guy is a bit lower in quality, though some episodes made me really happy as well. Overall, I cannot honestly say that I prefer the Coens work over Family Guy. Both made me really happy, though The Big Lebowski is significantly better than any single Family Guy episode.

I also didn't understand No Country For Old Men so I don't regard it as their best movie (I liked Fargo and The Big Lebowski much more). I personally consider the types of emotions these films seek to create are lower than, for example, the types Kurosawa's films seek (which is a sublime feeling, a feeling of something great, something above simple "happy"). Now, there is also the question of preference between types of emotions. So, it is still hard for me to think that a work that doesn't seek to attain what I define as sky should be regarded as part of the sky. So, since the Coens never tried to make what I would consider a great movie, I wouldn't consider them great directors.

I don't hold gross/dark comedy in very high regard. Maybe because it is a more forgettable feeling, for me at least, such as jokes involving extreme violence (Pulp Fiction is a festival of jokes involving extreme violence, as Kill Bill, though they are the best in what they do) if compared to the subtle cartoon of Porco Rosso and it's innocent comedy or the raw emotional power of Ikiru. Anyway, the only Coen or Tarantino film that I ever felt the desire of watching again was Pulp Fiction, because I think it transcends a bit it's own genre limitations and achieves something really beyond mere escapism.

I watched Coen films for years before I discovered Miyazaki, since I discovered Miyazaki I never watched a Coen film again, the last one was A Serious Man a few years ago. Like most other movies, I regarded them as simply entertainment, something to kill time. When I watched Spirited Away, it was something very, very different from what I was used to, the only film comparable to it that I had watched before was Kubrick's 2001, in terms of spontaneously achieving that feeling of sublimity that goes beyond entertainment but impresses itself into the heart. I never found such feeling while watching the Coens, or Monthy Python, or Family Guy or Seinfeld. I never expected to find it in a cartoon and I actually wish I didn't love these movies so much since they have taken too much time out of my real life. It bordering on what a psychiatrist might say that it is a mental illness that I am so affected by these movies so that my real life is negatively affected, I once watched Nausicaa and I was unable to think in anything else besides that cartoon for over a week, the Nausicaa manga was even worse. That never happened to me on work of any other director or any other work of fiction.

So, I like Coens films, but I honestly have difficulty understanding how someone might truly love them to the degree of wishing to love them less, for practical reasons. This review is pretty much on my line of thinking regarding No Country For Old Men: http://criticafterdark.blogspot.com....and-ethan.html, though this critic is a bit too hard on it.

They never made a serious film. Not among the 8-9 films I have watched from them at least.

They are never serious. Maybe Reservoir Dogs is a bit more serious. But I never watched Tarantino for the drama (nobody does), but for the fun of watching extreme cartoon violence and bullsh*t dialogue executed in cool, entertaining manner. That's comedy in my book.

Is it me or are almost all of Guaporense's posts tl;dr? There's no point in reading because we know what it says. There's no point is responding because that is comparable to feeding a stray dog.

The best director is one who works strictly with animation...too funny. Just propose already, Guap.



Hmmm...It doesn't look like Hayao likes the sound of that.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

It is common knowledge that Woody Allen and his movies are far more popular and successful in Europe than in the USA.

Possibly that is not true for 'your country'; but judging by the spuriousness of several of your claims that you air with such certainty, I'm not sure if that is the case.

First you said the first Woody Allen film you saw was a month ago. Then, in the same thread, a few hours later, you lay claim to some kind of expertise on the substance of Woody Allen's films.....

Woody Allen has directed well over 40 films - every single one of which he has written. How many have you seen since you watched Annie Hall a month ago?

You've clearly seen lots of films and occasionally you offer some worthwhile opinions on and insight into them. However, spouting about things that you clearly know little about undermines your credibility.

I can't agree with you here, Guap.

First of all, you're degrading the art of comedy to something unimportant and futile, which it is not, of course. Humor is one of the very few elements that singly can make a movie entertaining and worth watching.

The Coen Brothers take it one step further. They also offer some very awesome characters, great visuals, fantastic camera work and some of their scripts are among the best and most original ever written.
They've made 15 movies and from the 12 I've seen, I didn't dislike a single one of them.

I also think you should watch way more Woody Allen films, before you criticize him, because he's just a filmmaking genius, in my opinion. I've seen 18 of his movies yet and although there are a few lesser in quality, they are all still worth a watch, in my opinion. And your posts clearly show that you don't know him, as his movies are full of philosophical references and questions about life. He's certainly not just a funny fellow making funny films.

And well, I shouldn't have to defend Tarantino, as he's one of the most influential directors of the last 20 years when it comes to style.

Miyazaki's influence and importance should also not be underestimated, but to state that a list with the three directors mentioned above in front of him, is immediately a bad list, is nonsense. In my opinion they can not be compared anyway.

Yeah because No Country was such a riot.
So was True Grit.


Your book is wrong. Entertaining and cool does not necessarily equal comedy.

Tarantino makes action movies. He makes adventures. And he's damn good at it. These types of movies have traditionally contained comedic elements but that does not make them comedies.

You've chastized other members here for their ignorance about the types of film you love, but your own ignorance about other films is glaringly obvious in your recent posts.

Guaporense, regarding your first argument: me. I am a huge, huge Tarantino fan, probably as much as you are of Miyazaki's. But what has this question got to do with mine, anyway? I fail to see the connection.

regarding your second argument: you didn't answer my question. I asked "what exactly makes Miyazaki better than the rest of the directors that you mentioned". You merely gave your opinion. You said why you find him better, which I understand. However, I find your comparisons laughable. Are you trying to say that Miyazaki's work is superior just because his films have made you shed a tear, while a Tarantino or a Coen brothers film hasn't? So, just because Tarantino and the Coens don't make tearjerkers, they're not as good as Miyazaki? I think it is unfair to disparage the works of Tarantino and the Coens just because their films don't give you the same feeling that a Miyazaki film does.

And Tarantino definitely doesn't make comedies. He has never made one.

Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are crime dramas. Kill Bill vol. 1 is an action/adventure movie. Kill Bill vol. 2 is a drama/action movie. Death Proof is a drama/thriller movie. Inglourious Basterds is a drama. Django Unchained is an action/western movie. There are funny moments in each of his films, but that does not make the entire film a comedy.

Yesterday I made a thread about the directors you still haven't seen. How come today I am reading about Miyazaki and Coen brothers being compared?

Don't do that!

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

me too, but i feel like i already know im going to disagree with his pov so i have no film insight to gain

i found no country really disappointing. action is supposed to build and they totally deflated right before the final match by not showing it go down

.

Oh I don't disagree. I hated that movie, actually. I just pointed to it because it is a Coen brothers film that is decidedly not a comedy.

It's not just you. He writes a novel each and every time and then constantly goes back and edits it to add even more statistics that nobody gives a **** about. I swear I get cross-eyed everytime I try to read one and I don't know why I bother because they all say the same damn thing.

Haven't seen any Woody Allen films.I don't know,whenever I want to watch his film,I read the plot summary and I instantly don't want to see it.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I once had a girlfriend who couldn't stand Woody Allen although she'd never seen his films. She had been indoctrinated by her mother. After I moved away, I learned from her that she had seen The Purple Rose of Cairo with her sister. She loved it and went back to watch it several times.

I've only 4 Woody Allen films Take the money and run, Annie Hall, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Midnight In Paris i'd say i enjoyed all of them and am looking forward to seeing more starting with Crimes And Misdemeanors.

I've never seen a Woody Allen film but I have Crimes and Misdemeanors and Midnight in Paris both recorded, looking forward to them

__________________

I love/like all of the Woody movies I've seen.

Annie Hall
Midnight in Paris
Hannah and Her Sisters
Crimes and Misdemeanors -
Manhattan