Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.