RIFA wrote:Wes Anderson - This guy is the definition of overrated. Notice that Wes Anderson's diversity is close to zero. This dude approached all his movies the same way. He has no idea what to do other than a satirical and cartoonish approach of comedy. If you can describe him in two words those would be obnoxious and repetative. Yes, he is entertaining and his movies have heart. But that's not enough to praise him like he's one of the best directors ever. Just like Burton... Wes Anderson lives in his own world. The difference between him and Burton though is in approach and variety.
Nolan can't do anything other than psychological thrillers. John Ford couldn't do anything other than hearty, roaring westerns. Hitchcock couldn't do anything other than suspense. Minnelli could only do musicals, Scorsese can only really do mob films. You can make blanket statements about any filmmaker, but that betrays the fact that you're not really looking very deep into what each film is about.
It's about how Anderson extrapolates and explores the same themes continually. The approach is actually very different even if he maintains the same aesthetic. Tenenbaums is a domestic black comedy, Life Aquatic is an adventure, Fantastic Mr. Fox is a caper, Darjeeling is almost a procession and Rushmore and Bottle Rocket are almost their own things entirely. All of them have key aspects that are common, specifically estranged or dysfunctional father figures, but how each one individually deals with those themes is what sets them apart.
On top of that, Anderson is blisteringly funny, moreso than the vast majority of other filmmakers working today. Certainly moreso than Payne, who genuinely is lavished with more praise than he's worth.
The whole concept of "overrated" is a pile of horse manure in general. What is the point in worrying about what other people think of a film in terms of a rating or anything like that? Just worry about the opinion that you have formulated (and props to you RIFA for actually doing that).
