Quote:
Originally Posted by phisherman
p.t. anderson, coen brothers, almodovar - all fine directors and capable on any given day of producing some good stuff.
tarantino - sorry, but i think he's kind of a hack as a director. way too much copycatting from blaxploitation and sonny cheeba movies from the 60s and 70s. that being said, he's a GREAT writer; the dude can definitely write dialogue.
aronofsky and soderburgh - meh...aronofsky is a bit indulgent for my taste. i liked pi, but it's his only film that really caught my eye. the wrestler was ok, just a bit overhyped. i like soderburgh's early films much better than his later fare; schizopolis and sex, lies and videotape are both good, but once he butchered solaris, that was it. it was far inferior to the tarkovsky version (which i really dug) and once he started making the oceans 11-13 movies it just looked like he was copying french new wave directors like truffaut and godard with his stylized approach.
|
Tarantino shows his influences on his sleeve, sure. But hack is way too strong for me. I mean,
Inglorious Basterds is a tremendous artistic achievement. I'd vote for Tarantino for this year's Best Director Oscar over Kathryne Bigelow.
Aronofsky, well, I can see indulgent when talking about
The Fountain. His other three films are pretty damn nice from the director's chair. I really, really disagree with you about
The Wrestler; I find it to be a tremendous work of art. That film is the ****ing American story.
I mentioned Soderbergh not for his money-making Hollywood films. Allow me a quick simile: I put up with the ubiquitousness of Boulevard's Unfiltered Wheat Beer because it pays the bills, allowing Boulevard to brew the Smokestack Series. In the same way Soderbergh makes fare like the Oceans franchise so that he can make better, more creative films like
Traffic, Bubble, Che or
The Girlfriend Experience. He's unafraid to change up his styles or to take large risks. He's unafraid to fail, which is commendable.