rolotomasi99 wrote:i know many dismiss EMPIRE OF THE SUN as lesser spielberg, but i just recently discovered it. i think more people need to re-examine spielberg's ability to tell a film that does not go for as many cheap sentimental moments as you might expect.
What the fudge?? Spielberg often goes for the cheap sentimental moments! I'm not saying he hasn't done interesting things like A.I. but he's not in the same league as Coppola, Scorsese or Depalma.
And I don't think being influenced by other directors or having an appreciation for film is the same as "ripping off." If that were true, all these guys would be guilty of that.
Frankly, I think Spielberg's latter day career (of, say, the past ten-fifteen years) has been far more interesting and provocative than Scorsese's latter day career.
De Palma is a mixed bag for me, and Coppola is a flame-out.
The reason he's in the conversation isn't the comparative quality of their films, or I would've just bashed George Lucas like everyone else. The reason he was brought in is because De Palma was a member of the clique with Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola and Lucas (hence, the "Peter Biskand" bit).
kubrick, altman, spielberg, scorsese, lucas, depalma....i love films by all these guys.....i loved eyes wide shut, but i also loved dr. strangelove, a clockwork orange, 2001 and barry lyndon....and i thought the shining, full metal jacket, lolita, paths of glory and sparticus were all very good.....altman has made a lot of films that i could have done without seeing, but he has made many of the most enjoyable i've seen in gosford park, nashville, mash, short cuts, the player, a prarie home companion and many others.
Spielberg is one of my favorite directors...he continues to do it really well, and he is at the top of the food chain, and he deserves to be...jaws, close encounters, raiders of the lost ark, et, color purple, empire of the sun, the last crusade, jurassic park, schindlers list, amistad, saving private ryan, A.I., minority report, munich...if you weren't entertained by at least half or just about all of these, then we're not watching movies for the same reasons.
As for lucas, my favorite lucas film was american graffiti...i loved star wars and they got worse as they went along for me, with the rescent ones getting really bad....but his movies have made a whole lot of money and people are very passionate about those movies.
As for bringing depalma into this, i don't really understand it....he's made a lot of good films, he's made a lot of films that have made a lot of money, but he hasn't made a classic film...i mean scarface? thats probably his most "known" film and its not a very good film....carrie was great, i loved the untouchables...casulties of war and carlito's way were very good but they didn't do well with money or awards...mission impossible did very well money wise but it wasn't a great film...so i don't see how he can be put in that class.....and i'm not saying that as a hit on him as a director, he just hasn't made the kind of films those guys have made, that have hit on a national level, critics wise, money wise, ect.....personally i like him, he leaves a very distinct touch on his films, he makes beautiful looking films time and time again....but he's also made some movies i really didn't like, snake eyes, bonfire, raising cain, mission to mars...and i was very dissappointed with black dahlia...i liked it but it was not a great film. So i just didn't get putting him into this conversation.
While I certainly don't hold DePalma on the pedestal that many intelligent cinephiles do (such as Damien and especially Eric), I do find it sad that he is never included in that 70s quartet. He is certainly the artist any of them are.
All five of those directors have made great films, but I never understood their immediate canonization among some. They are good, and all have their important place in film history, but none of them are the end-all of cinema, as some people want them all to be.
Out of the filmmakers to emerge from that era, give me Woody Allen, Jonathan Demme and Peter Bogdonavich over the five of them any day. But a lot of this is just personal preference.
Edited By FilmFan720 on 1172517394
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
I'm sorry. There is only one thing I won't stand for, and that's someone questioning the integrity of Brian De Palma ... especially at the expense of, of all "directors," George Lucas.
Eric wrote:rolo, I say this as someone who thinks nearly every director discussed on this page has made at least one great film (with the exception of George Lucas): you are an idiot.
OMG! It´s getting hard to discuss on this board with such level of agression.
rolo, I say this as someone who thinks nearly every director discussed on this page has made at least one great film (with the exception of George Lucas): you are an idiot.
rolotomasi99 wrote:next you are going to tell me that michael bay and kevin smith are unappreciated geniuses and robert altman and stanley kubrick are overrated hacks.
No on Bay and Smith, but Altman made some of the most unwatchable movies ever made (Have you actually ever tried sitting through Quintet or Health?) and the only great film Kubrick ever made was Eyes Wide Shut.
like i said...alice in wonderland.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
rolotomasi99 wrote:next you are going to tell me that michael bay and kevin smith are unappreciated geniuses and robert altman and stanley kubrick are overrated hacks.
No on Bay and Smith, but Altman made some of the most unwatchable movies ever made (Have you actually ever tried sitting through Quintet or Health?) and the only great film Kubrick ever made was Eyes Wide Shut.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Damien wrote:And I agree with Eric that De Palma is (by far) the best of that 70s group. In his rather overall repulsive career, Spielberg has made one great film (A.I.) and two good ones (Sugarland Express and Jaws), Coppola is like a not-untalented studio hack from the 40s (think Irving Rapper, Henry King) and other than American Graffiti, George Lucas is not even worth mentioning. De Palma, on the other hand, has made some of the most nteresting movies of the last 30 years (although I admit Bonfire of the Vanities is one f the worst).
next you are going to tell me that michael bay and kevin smith are unappreciated geniuses and robert altman and stanley kubrick are overrated hacks.
did i wake up in wonderland? up is down, left is right, and good directors like scorsese and coppola are bad while an unsuccessful (i will not go as far as bad) director like de palma is a legend in his own time.
i am just so shocked that there is so much unabashed worshipping of de palma. i knew people enjoyed some of his films, but i never knew real cinephiles loved him this much. i am not being sarcastic or anything, i am just trying to figure out how i was so unaware that de palma was taken this seriously. i guess you learn something new every day.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Eastwood deserved to win, but at least now we don't have to gp through the semi-annua; nonsense of "When Is The Academy Finally Going To Give Scorsese His Oscar?' The man has never made a completely successful picture (although Departed and Last Temptation come closest).
And I agree with Eric that De Palma is (by far) the best of that 70s group. In his rather overall repulsive career, Spielberg has made one great film (A.I.) and two good ones (Sugarland Express and Jaws) (though I know Eric would disagree with this assesment), Coppola is like a not-untalented studio hack from the 40s (think Irving Rapper, Henry King) and other than American Graffiti, George Lucas is not even worth mentioning. De Palma, on the other hand, has made some of the most nteresting movies of the last 30 years (although I admit Bonfire of the Vanities is one f the worst).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
rolotomasi99 wrote:i know many dismiss EMPIRE OF THE SUN as lesser spielberg, but i just recently discovered it. i think more people need to re-examine spielberg's ability to tell a film that does not go for as many cheap sentimental moments as you might expect.
What the fudge?? Spielberg often goes for the cheap sentimental moments! I'm not saying he hasn't done interesting things like A.I. but he's not in the same league as Coppola, Scorsese or Depalma.
And I don't think being influenced by other directors or having an appreciation for film is the same as "ripping off." If that were true, all these guys would be guilty of that.
it was poorly written, but i meant he avoided that in EMPIRE OF THE SUN. he does that quite a bit in other films, which is why EMPIRE OF THE SUN was a pleasant surprise. other than that weird moment at the end, the emotions of the film are very subdued and realistic. i also appreciate that he avoids using bale's cuteness to propel the movie.
nice try, but saying "influence" rather than "rip off" is only valid when the director finds a voice of his own. scorsese is very up front and articulate about his influences. de palma is like frankenstein, taking bits and pieces from other films and cobbling them together to make some entertaining movies. i just wish he would make something that felt completely his own. i want de palma to be a good director, as opposed to ron howard and robert zemeckis both of whom i just want to die a horrible death for being so bad.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
rolotomasi99 wrote:i know many dismiss EMPIRE OF THE SUN as lesser spielberg, but i just recently discovered it. i think more people need to re-examine spielberg's ability to tell a film that does not go for as many cheap sentimental moments as you might expect.
What the fudge?? Spielberg often goes for the cheap sentimental moments! I'm not saying he hasn't done interesting things like A.I. but he's not in the same league as Coppola, Scorsese or Depalma.
And I don't think being influenced by other directors or having an appreciation for film is the same as "ripping off." If that were true, all these guys would be guilty of that.
THE BLACK DAHLIA and FEMME FATALE good, EMPIRE OF THE SUN and SCHINDLER'S LIST bad. with all due respect...wtf!!!!!
i will not argue with you about lucas, but i think it is interesting you did not even mention coppola. i know he has not made anything good in awhile, but when you make three of the best movies of the 70's (which is saying quite a bit) you get to rest on your laurels a little.
i am no spielberg fan, but he has surprised me along the way of his otherwise very commercial career. i know many dismiss EMPIRE OF THE SUN as lesser spielberg, but i just recently discovered it. i think more people need to re-examine spielberg's ability to tell a film that does not go for as many cheap sentimental moments as you might expect. plus, christian bale gives one of the best child performances ever.
de palma is notorious for ripping off other directors, whether hitchcock, kubrick, eisenstein, or others. there is nothing distinct about a de palma film. he handles the visuals but never uses them to enhance the emotions or story like scorsese, coppola, and even spielberg. i am always rooting for him to make a good film, but he always disappoints.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
