Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkenstein
exactly. plus i have an undying love for classic directing, done on FILM and with a panoramic screen (thats why i love the direction tarantino is going, but i digress).
especially in horror, where there used to be some amazing filmmakers once, now everything is shaky cam, mtv jump cuts and LOUD NOISE scares. or if it isnt, its all about faking how "extreme" your movie is and not actually doing anything worth watching (like the human centipede thing).
with all the shit Avatar had, at least its a distinctly non-shaky movie.
|
Totally agree on Tarantino, but if you even watch his early stuff he's still very coherent and understands what he's trying to do with the movie (too bad he couldn't have directed Natural Born Killer and True Romace,
those would have been interesting).
As for horror...somewhere Eli Roth and his soulless black eyes are plotting revenge for that statement in the grossest, yet most boring way possible. And I really can't say anything good for Avatar except it gave James Cameron even more money to push his kindergarten view of the world on people... oh wait.
And to kind of get back to Into The Wild, as I forgot to mention this before, I'm not ultra concerned with the reality of the situation and how it pertains to the film, it's more if I relate to the point the filmmaker is trying to get across. It's kind of like Braveheart where the battle of Sterling Bridge failed to have an actual bridge in it, and the depiction of King Edward is pretty inaccurate as Scotland asked for him to intercede in the civil warring that was going on, but I could overlook that because I liked the story depicted in the movie. It's more Into The Wild didn't appeal to me on the theme of leaving society literally behind, as that just seems a lot of work to me, I like my iPhone, and a movie trying to get that point across to me about the ills of society is going to fall on deaf ears.