Is is Martin scorcese universally acknowledged as the worlds greatest director?

Arghus wrote: »

All I can say is that I disagree.

And that's grand.

Arghus wrote: »

I think there's more to the films portrayal of Goth and Fiennes performance than just a paper thin villain.

I don't think Schindler's List is flawless either. It is emotionally manipulative, aware of its own supposed high mindedness and a bit pat in its final conclusion. But I think it transcends those aspects and is genuinely powerful.

There is nastiness in Casino for sure - the head in the vice, the hammer, the being buried alive, the pen in the neck - it's chilling and horrible, but equally there's no burning piles of corpses, matter of fact summary executions or people being shot dead at random from a balcony at breakfast.

I think there's a point to that as well. Casino's violence is, in some respects, worse on the surface - you really hear the guys head crack in the vice - but there's a coldness and clinical quality to the onscreen death in SL, which, for me, makes it even worse and more genuinely harrowing. Death can happen at an instant, up close, or at a distance, for no reason at all and most of the time no-one blinks an eye because that's just the way it is and human life doesn't mean anything in these circumstances. I find that more disturbing than the flashes of brutality we get in Casino.

Look, I don't want to give the impression that I don't like 'Schindler's List'. The Blu sits on the shelf and I've seen it numerous times since I first saw it in the pictures in 1993.

But for me, it suffers from the same problems that nearly all Hollywood holocaust films do. It's a blunt force, highly embellished, over wrought, button pusher, complete with stock characters (you disagree of course) and a very black and white view of things (no pun intended). But that doesn't mean that it isn't a great film on its own merits and one that's well directed and acted within its framework. But for my money, something like 'The Grey Zone' would have it beat in so far as its subject matter is concerned.

As regards to the violence, don't let my comment on the nature of it in either film to be a watermark of some sort. I mention it only as an illustration of my tongue in cheek remark about the "enjoyability" of 'Casino'. Both films deal with casual and disturbing violence in a matter of fact way and I would wonder at the stability of someone who would enjoy such things. But with 'Casino' you can sit back and let go a bit. 'Schindler's List' can be a little too high in its own, as you say, "supposed high mindedness" and that can take a feather out of its cap, as it were.

Muppet Man wrote: »

would tarrantino get a look in at all? Pulp fiction one of my all time favourite movies.

Personally, no. Quentin's best film is still 'Reservoir Dogs', with 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Jackie Brown' following up. Everything else he's done, he's scuppered in some way, in spite of the fact that there are usually brilliant things in every one of his movies.

Tarantino, for all his skill and talent, is far too wrapped up in pointing his fingers at the audience and saying "Did you see what I did there, wasn't that kwel?"

I get disappointed every time I watch a Tarantino movie, with the exception of the three mentioned above. I nearly threw something at the screen when 'The Hateful Eight' turned from an exciting drama into a shitfest in the second half and the denouement of 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' was just bloody stupid. There's no other way to put it.

Wow... tough crowd

Arghus wrote: »

I'd rate the Coens above Tarantino.

Indisputably.

Millers Crossing, Fargo and Buster Scuggs as a trio (and in that order) could win that argument against Tarantino's back catalogue imo.

Others would argue that O Brother alone would do the trick.

Yurt! wrote: »

He hasn't done anything of great worth since the Kill Bill movies.


But I have to disagree, I was pretty miffed with Once Upon a Time... until the last act. It was so outrageous in a good way.

I enjoyed the ultra violence, but, at the same time, I thought it was a missed opportunity.

Up until that point I thought OUATIH had been a surprisingly melancholy and thoughtful - for latter day Tarantino - film from him. It was still cartoonist, but there was an ennui or something running through it that felt different, deeper, than a lot of his post Jackie Brown stuff and then - bang - it all finished up with OTT violence, same as all the recent others.

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Predator is arguably the first mainstream Hollywood movie to address the AIDS crisis, a good six years before philadelphia.

What?

Predator was obviously a critique of the overbearing bureaucracy in the defunct Austria-Hungarian Empire

Brian? wrote: »

Only Joel directs though? Right?

They seem to both direct/write/edit on their projects with no real clear distinction between them.

Having said that Joel is directing an upcoming movie solo, which is the first one of his career.

Brian? wrote: »

Fair enough. I would rate the Coens way above Tarantino myself. He has some great films but also some real stinkers.

And absolutely nothing in the same league as No Country for Old Men, which is an absolute masterpiece of a film.

Yep, "No Country for Old Men" is a real knockout, I agree. It is a totally enthralling picture in my opinion. I may be wrong, but I think it will age well, because it manages to play with the clichés in an artful way.

I was disappointed with "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

The topic was promising, but fell flat. It could have been a great movie.

Stanley Kubrick for me. Every single film he made is just so brilliantly made and crafted. Kubrick's films also have the genius effect of incorporating the audiences different biases and emotions into his motion picture creations. Especially the later works. Different people in the audience get different reactions and emotions to what is being portrayed on the screen. For example, a good 70% of 'The Shining' for me is a total black comedy.