nolanberg wrote:Finches is as good. Visual and atmosphere go hand in hand but finchet's eye is unmatched in the industry

Ok talli

nolanberg wrote:Finches is as good. Visual and atmosphere go hand in hand but finchet's eye is unmatched in the industry

RIFA wrote:Nolan is better. Just sayin'.

Thats what you think

James wrote:

RIFA wrote:Nolan is better. Just sayin'.

Thats what you think

Get out.

prince0gotham wrote:

James wrote:
David Fincher on a segway. Your argument is invalid.

or simply

Love the cat one! Thats hilarious

IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:

James wrote:
Thats what you think

Get out.

Mason01 wrote:

James wrote:Visually speaking David Fincher is the greatest director. He also has he greatest music in his films

Mr. Kubrick takes that, I'm afraid.

I'd say Ridley Scott, Michael Mann and Terrence Malick. I personally find Kubrick's visuals to be stale and one dimensional, i.e. bland and lacking intensity, and pretty uninteresting e.g. FMJs visuals are blown totally out of the water by, say, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter and Platoon. There's no palpable emotion or feeling to them.

But that's just me. One could argue that there is a palpable sense of emotion, feeling or tone to them. They'd argue their case and I'd argue mine, but when it comes down to it, it's just subjective. So really, it's not a question of him being a bad director, it's just that his films failed to reach me on a visual level whereas I actively enjoy taking in the light saturated cityscapes of a Michael Mann film. I don't want anyone to respond to this because I'm totally aware of how Kubrick's films have affected people, but they just haven't with me.

What I'm saying is, I could write an essay on appraising Kubrick - but I just wouldn't mean it.

Platoon and The Deer Hunter aren't fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Apocalypse Now.

christophmac wrote:

Mason01 wrote:
Mr. Kubrick takes that, I'm afraid.

I'd say Ridley Scott, Michael Mann and Terrence Malick. I personally find Kubrick's visuals to be stale and one dimensional, i.e. bland and lacking intensity, and pretty uninteresting e.g. FMJs visuals are blown totally out of the water by, say, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter and Platoon. There's no palpable emotion or feeling to them.

But that's just me. One could argue that there is a palpable sense of emotion, feeling or tone to them. They'd argue their case and I'd argue mine, but when it comes down to it, it's just subjective. So really, it's not a question of him being a bad director, it's just that his films failed to reach me on a visual level whereas I actively enjoy taking in the light saturated cityscapes of a Michael Mann film. I don't want anyone to respond to this because I'm totally aware of how Kubrick's films have affected people, but they just haven't with me.

What I'm saying is, I could write an essay on appraising Kubrick - but I just wouldn't mean it.

You're spot on mate! With me I'd say Ridley Scotts visuals are rubbish. Other than Blade Runner which has the greatest visuals ever (and i feel is the greatest film ever) - I attribute that entirely to Jordan Cronenweth. I've seen Ridley Scott films and I personally, in no uncertain terms think they're crap. With me I can always tell I'm watching a movie when it's a Ridley Scott film, because you can just sense the camera man and director behind the camera lol, you can tell it's not real and his visuals don't always match up from one frame to another. Stealing from christofmac what I'm saying is, I could write an essay on appraising Scott - but I just wouldn't mean it.