But it should be personal. I think critics should generally write in the first person. But actually they rarely do.
I donât know. I donât like to many âeyesâ in an article.
Some say an article (on a movie or whatever subject) should be as neutral as possible; I canât agree with that either, as a reader i always want to see a judgment, a conclusion or whatever. But too much personal opinion kills a text for me. They call that type of writing the âI cultureâ: I think, I find, Iâm sure of this, Iâm sure of that. As a reviewer of films and novels, I always try to point what I think is good and I what I think is not good in a movie or novel, and in doing so i try to be as objective as possible (if some very personal thing is involved - for instance not being able to stand a certain actor - I mention it). In the end a judgement is of course personal, but it can be based on acquired knowledge and insight. I never write on things I donât know anything about (in fact I did that a couple of times and it turned out to be a bad experience)
Gone Girl (Fincher/14)
AS the release date nearer, my anticipation for this film increased; it certainly seemed much more promising than Fincherâs previous effort (The Girl with Dragon Tattoo). While the second at twist was spoiled for me ahead of time, the film in fact pre-empts it and really kicks into high gear after it at any rate. Some of the film is very, very good - the whole opening procedural part, with Ben Affleck as the suspected killer of his wife and Kim Dickens as the intelligent cop. Fincher can shoot this kind of thing to perfection; sure, itâs at the end of the day, high-end television, but nevertheless thrilling. Performances are note-perfect, and particularly praise must go to Carrie Coon as Affleckâs sister. The mid-act twist however, suddenly introduces a whole new layer to the film, the movie then progressing in parallel plotlines. Arguably itâs all improbable how it proceeds from then on, but I think itâs quite apt to describe it as âabsurdistâ, Fincher using the verisimilitude to make a very intriguing and caustic investigation of relationships, post-crash of '08 in modern America, that is undoubtedly pessimistic and intentionally exaggerated but seems to ring true nonetheless. Plus, thereâs a murder scene that is one of the best things heâs ever done: it brings abject horror back into the murder scene, which has been prettified and trivialised over the decades. Itâs stunning technique, the camera reacting like a shocked voyeur, arcing round the scene, blacking out as though itâs blinking in disbelief, a reading that fits in well with the filmâs commentary on the media (even if that satire isnât particularly groundbreaking). Fincher has found a screenplay (by Gillian Flynn, who wrote the same-self novel) that gives depth to this direction and not just an empty exercise in style. Certain aspects of the movie are none too original, but itâs always, always engrossing and both technique (cinematography, music) and acting is excellent, and Rosamund Pike has the most fascinating female role in the movies this year (which actually says a lot about Hollywood, sadly).
Nightcrawler (2014)
Really breath of fresh air. It is basically a satire on modern media and modern socio-business structure and cuture, but it works well as action thriller too (there is a lot of that Dodge Challenger from the poster in the movie). Gyllenhaal is great, itâs almost a one-man-show, but Riz Ahmed as his sidekick is great too. At moments funny at moments disturbing and scary, this dynamic and dark satire is recommended.
[size=12pt]Fury - David Ayer[/size]
[url]Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos
Just watched war flick Fury, and wasnât totally unsatisfied, itâs a good war movie, that could have been even more effective to be better.
Thereâs nothing actually new, still the recycling is not the worst Iâve seen around. The director didnât waste too much time with moral dilemmas, in that aspect is very straightforward, but not so much for the viewer not to miss the characters lack of depth (thatâs where the clichĂ©s enter, to replace characterâs depth). Also the romantic issue with one of the soldiers falling for a local girl, went a little out of general context, and really adds nothing to the film. In the cinema felt that the film was a bit overlong.
Liked the cast, even LeBoeuf (if this was the Dirty Dozen he would had been Telly Savalas), Pitt is on the way to replace Robert Redford, at least his trying, but seems a bit too old for the part, of course he would have been Lee Marvin.
The best of the film are the action scenes thatâs where the director felt comfortable, even if from a pure military point of view the last scene is pretty much unrealistic, with so many panzerfaust around, even the most untrained troops âŠups spoilers.
Really not a bad film (not a good or brilliant one either) in the sense that could have been a waste of my time - it wasnât - itâs a well done one nice to watch, kind a todays version or actualization from those war films of the 60âs, but even if today they have the real original period WWII tanks to show, I still miss films like Kellyâs heroes.
Not the best film about tank warfare Iâve seen, that would go the claustrophobic Israeli film Lebanon.
In conclusion good recycling is always better than bad recycling, but itâs still recycling, pity the director had to invent more than necessary.
Oh dear. Propably âcasino royaleâ I have not gone to cinema for years because hate to hear mobiles ringing and people munching popcorn etcâŠ
Not that Iâve seen the entirety of Fincherâs filmography, I can rank his ten films. I must admit to enjoying all of them, to varying degrees, and even the lower tiered films here have aspects to recommend them.
- Seven
- Zodiac
- Gone Girl
- The Game
- The Social Network
- Alien[sup]3[/sup] (Assembly Cut)
- Fight Club
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Panic Room
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Surveying his career thus, it reinforces my idea that heâs the best studio director working, who like many filmmakers from the thirties/forties/fifties relies on a good script to propel his film beyond being merely well-crafted. In fact it would be interesting to see what would happen if he authored his own screenplay; but for the time being, no one in America is making thrillers as good as him.
Fincher is much more than a studio director. I assume he controls his films. Well most of them âŠ
I remember an interview in which Tarantino claims that Fincher, unlike himself, is only a director, not a âfilm makerâ.
I donât know, apart from the author theory, we now seem to get a film maker theory. Fincher has only two (minor) writing credits on IMDB, writing seems not to be his forte.
@John | Rather mow marks for Fight Club.
Sure he has control - I assume he gets final cut on all his projects these days, but he plays by the system. He makes movies with big stars, based on big books or with high concepts and is allowed large budgets by virtue of the fact that his movies make a lot of money. Yet his âauthorshipâ as I view it, comes through the treatment of his material, not the subjects themselves, which he doesnât write and often come from antecedent sources, which I think points to some form of comparison with other studio âauteursâ of the past.
@ Sherp:
Fight Clubâs a good film and it certainly caught a zeitgeist and while itâs better than some of the films higher up the list (like Alien[sup]3[/sup] for instance), itâs not one I find myself returning to.
As I have seen (well, not exactly) all of the listed, itâs opportunity to do another list, and we all like the lists do we 
Here it goes:
- Fight Club
- Seven
- Alien3
- Panic Room
- The Game
- Zodiac
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- *The Social Network
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
I LOVED Fight Club and Seven and now after time has passed Fight Club remains one of THE my generationâs movies (along Traninpotting etc) and Seven remains a great thriller. Alien3 and Panic Rooms are underrated, I love those too, I think I would rather return to PR than to The Game although that is maybe not objective.
I would have loved Zodiac if I was not bother that it âborrowsâ so much from the magnificent Memories of Murder. Although Zodiac was executed masterfully thatâs when I started to have my doubts about Fincher which were only magnified with each following movie. I hated that Forrest Gump wannabe, Iâve only watched half of the Social Network and never bothered to finish it, and all I got for The Girl with Dragon Tattoo was âwhateverâ (apart from being slightly annoyed by the taming of the original name). I am open for the possibility that Gone Girl which I have yet to see will revive my love for his movies.
[quote=âscherpschutter, post:1051, topic:2027â]I remember an interview in which Tarantino claims that Fincher, unlike himself, is only a director, not a âfilm makerâ.
I donât know, apart from the author theory, we now seem to get a film maker theory. Fincher has only two (minor) writing credits on IMDB, writing seems not to be his forte.[/quote]
A filmmaker has not to write his films, but mostly he co-writes them though, well to a certain degree, not necessarily with a writing credit, but to the amount that he changes what does not work. and if he isnât able to make the necessary changes himself he hires another writer, often also uncredited. A filmmaker uses writers like he uses editors. composers, actors, cameramen etc.
The right for the final cut is much more important than a screenplay.
[quote=âStanton, post:1054, topic:2027â]A filmmaker has not to write his films, but mostly he co-writes them though, well to a certain degree, not necessarily with a writing credit, but to the amount that he changes what does not work. and if he isnât able to make the necessary changes himself he hires another writer, often also uncredited. A filmmaker uses writers like he uses editors. composers, actors, cameramen etc.
The right for the final cut is much more important than a screenplay.[/quote]
Donât know, I remember Tarantino using the term differently; he thought a director had to have at least a hand in the writing of the movie. Donât know who coined the term and if there is a strict definition of it (like âauthorâ it seems open for interpretation).
@ John | I have the same ideas about Fight Club, I didnât dislike it, thought it was a well-made movie, but never went back to it. Donât know how I would rank it, talking about Fincherâs oeuvre. I prefer it to Seven, but thought The Game was better (but havenât seen that in a while either)
Such terms are always open for interpretation, as is the general question who is the author of a film.
And writing credits often enough donât mean much.
But Fincher has often worked with material that would have been done anyway. But if he is an author I assume that these films would have then become very different.
But Tarantino is at least more original than Fincher, still both have made some of the best films of the last 20 years.
[quote=âStanton, post:1056, topic:2027â]Such terms are always open for interpretation, as is the general question who is the author of a film.
And writing credits often enough donât mean much.
But Fincher has often worked with material that would have been done anyway. But if he is an author I assume that these films would have then become very different.
But Tarantino is at least more original than Fincher, still both have made some of the best films of the last 20 years.[/quote]
I think weâre actually agreeing with each other here Stanton: many (most?) of Fincherâs films wouldâve been made with or without him, from Alien[sup]3[/sup] to Gone Girl, perhaps even with the same screenplays, but it is Fincherâs way of telling the story that makes his pictures a significant cut above the rest. Tarantino, who emerged round a similar time, is more original in that he made kinds of movies not seen in American cinema before; I have a feeling heâd probably like Fight Club best of Fincherâs works, but as to who is the better director, itâs a tough call. Tarantino, by a hair, but Fincher is more consistent in terms of quality and isnât prone to indulgence and/or excess.
I think QT is more consistent, even if Django Unchained was a bit less good than usual.
Interstellar (2014)
I pretty much enjoyed this filmâŠIâve long been fascinated by the concept of âwormholesâ, time warps, and other dimensions. Good acting performances by all. About the only thing I didnât like were the shots that showed the constant spinning of the ship, where you could see the distant earth outside the windows. The concepts were great, but IMO not Christopher Nolanâs best work. Also, Matthew McConaugheyâs has a tendency in this film to mumble his lines, at times almost incoherently.
I too have just seen Interstellar (2015) in the cinema. Christoper Nolan has became new Steven Spielberg. His movies are epic and stunning, but they are also plagued with cheesy Hollywood-style sentimentality. This movie switches gear several times. First part is more philosophical and ideological, then we get some proper SF action, and in the end it all becomes very light. Nice pastime, but in the end closer to Armageddon than to 2001.
The 50 best of 2014, according to Empire magazine (LINK[url]http://www.empireonline.com/features/50-best-films-2014/[/url]):
- Boyhood (Linklater)
- Nightcrawler (Gilroy)
- The Wolf of Wall Street (Scorsese)
- Inside Llewyn Davies (Coen/Coen)
- Guardians of the Galaxy (Gunn)
- Edge of Tomorrow (Liman)
- The Grand Budapest Hotel (Anderson)
- What We Do in the Shadows (Waititi/Clement)
- Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Reeves)
- Her (Jonze)
- Mr. Turner (Leigh)
- Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Russo)
- X-Men: Days of Future Past (Singer)
- Gone Girl (Fincher)
- Interstellar (Nolan)
- Calvary (McDonagh)
- The Lego Movie (Lord/Miller)
- [b]The Guest /b
- [b]Under the Skin /b
- 12 Years a Slave (McQueen)
- Locke (Knight)
- Blue Ruin (Saulnier)
- The Imitation Game (Tyldum)
- Pride (Warchus)
- '71 (Demange)
- Godzilla (Edwards)
- Dallas Buyers Club (Vallée)
- 22 Jump Street (Lord/Miller)
- Only Lovers Left Alive (Jarmusch)
- Starred Up (Mackenzie)
- Paddington (King)
- The Raid 2 (Evans)
- Leviathan (Zvyagintsev)
- Frank (Abrahamson)
- Timâs Vermeer (Teller)
- How to Train Your Dragon 2 (DeBlois)
- Obvious Child (Robespierre)
- The Babadook (Kent)
- Cold in July (Mickle)
- Fruitvale Station (Coogler)
- Chef (Favreau)
- Next Goal Wins (Brett/Jamison)
- 20 Feet From Stardom (Neville)
- Two Days, One Night (Dardenne/Dardenne)
- The Two Faces of January (Amini)
- Maps to the Stars (Cronenberg)
- Winter Sleep (Ceylan)
- American Hustle (Russell)
- Of Horses and Men (Erlingsson)
- Human Capital (Virzi)
Iâve seen the films by some of the directors Iâm interested in, Scorsese, Fincher, Dardenne brothers (havenât seen the Coens movie yet), the films they made were okay, but not among their best work.
So far Two Days, One Night was the best, but again: the Dardenne brothers have done better.