Honestly, while I vastly prefer film over digital, I think modern movies have much bigger problems than using digital. I haven’t seen a truly great movie that’s come out in the past 15 years, movies just suck in general these days.
I blame film academia and their insistence on analyzing other people’s films and creating an objective structure around film and the whole “post modern” approach to filmmaking where they care more about making something formulaic and conventional that’s highly derivative of other people’s films rather than something actually original and unique. Christopher Nolan is a perfect example of this type of filmmaker, his films almost feel like they were written by AI because they are just so deliberately conventional and formulaic, and just uncreative… and the mainstream public gives something like Oppenheimer an 8.3/10 because these films are deliberately designed for mainstream success and generating profit. He uses film and not digital, but his movies are still crap.
I think the whole financial side of making a movie has killed film making as an art form really. It would have been impossible for something like the spaghetti western to exist in this era of hollywood dominance and expensive production costs, and even spaghetti westerns were hated by the establishment initially, all these big production companies hate creativity since with creativity comes uncertainty, its too big of a risk to make something that’s genuinely art because of the massive financial investment that modern films require.
I actually really didn’t like fury road (or any mad max film after the first 2), the revenant and OUATIH are thoroughly enjoyable films, but not great by any means imo. Birdman I haven’t seen.
We have had enjoyable movies in the last 15 years but nothing that is truly great imo. All the best movies came out before.
At least if it is shot on film, then a digital projection won’t look bad since the pixels are still alive. But there is always something special about watching on film too with all the flickers.
As for Nolan, Dunkirk was unconventional in style (regardless of plot) and a true cinematic gem. Of his works that I have seen, it is easily my favorite.
What wasn’t conventional about the film? I remember seeing it when it came out and thought it was pretty bland and generic war drama, just more sanitized and PG, and therefore watered down.
Dunkirk is excellently directed, it is indeed a fascinating film, I watched it 5 times. It’s his best, far better than The Dark Knight, which so far didn’t do much for me.
Before Dunkirk I had lost more and more the interest in his films, now it gets back.
Nolan has made several very unusual films, not all are great, but he obviously loves cinema and is able to get the freedom to do what he wants. Too bad that he got an Oscar …
Oppenheimer is not his best film, but I onyl watched it once, but it was pretty entertaining despite suffering from todays overlongness.
To each their own but his movies are as conventional and as formulaic as they get, there’s nothing unusual about his films. He doesn’t really have a style at all, he’s just known for consistently releasing films that appeal to mainstream audiences precisely because of how conventional they are. I can’t think of a director that makes more generic films. He’s more of a businessman than an artist, he seems to not care much for creating something creative, just something that sells.
I don’t hate his films but they have never been anything more than a 6/10, and i think that’s being very generous. The oscars have always been a joke too, so nothing surprising there.
A bondish film in which the time runs at the same time forwards and backwards is conventional?
Telling stories not chronologically is conventional?
You can blame Nolan for many things, but he rarely tells his stories the usual way. His Badman films are mainstream, but his other films all have some unusual narrative ideas, but despite some commercial compromises all his films are still risky.
And if you can’t think of a director who makes more generic films, how many of the mostly totally formulaic SWs have you seen?
eh just a couple of plot gimmicks Doesn’t make them any less conventional. Anything unique conceptually in his films is very surface level and he never does anything meaningful with the concept, they’re just gimmicks. It’s in the execution and details where creativity matters most, not in the concept of the film and nolan’s films are so generic in this regard that they could be written by today’s AI bots and still be of the same quality.
As I said, I think he cares more about money than making genuinely good movies, he cares about appealing to mainsteam audiences, so while the concept may be unique the execution of said concept is as conventional as it gets. Unique gimmicky concepts make for good marketing, but true creativity does not sell in the 21th century. Accessibility is what sells.
Also yeah, ive seen plenty of generic spaghetti westerns lol but I think leone and corbucci are the most creative film directors of all-time… and fistful of dollars proves my point that the concept is not as important as the details and execution of said concept given how FOD and Yojimbo are basically completely different films despite sharing the same basic plot and structure.
Stealing another director’s “plot and structure” doesn’t really qualify as “creative”. As a matter of fact, it is the exact opposite. Is Leone a great director? Yes. Absolutely. But, due to his massive ego, he ultimately under delivered from what he was capable of in the case of every film but For a Few Dollars More.
As for Corbucci, he made some truly wonderful films but, due to his on set cruelty to animals, I think he was an utter and complete piece of shit. Deliberately placing horses into situations where they are likely to be killed or injured, to the point of having to be put down, just to achieve an effect, is also far from “creative” and makes him a despicable human being.
FOD is an extremely creative film regardless, moreso than yojimbo actually. There’s more to a film than just the main plot points and structure. The details and the execution of the concept are entirely different from yojimbo.
he ultimately under delivered from what he was capable of in the case of every film but For a Few Dollars More.
What???
As for Corbucci, he made some truly wonderful films but, due to his on set cruelty to animals, I think he was an utter and complete piece of shit. Deliberately placing horses into situations where they are likely to be killed or injured, to the point of having to be put down, just to achieve an effect, is also far from “creative” and makes him a despicable human being.
Strawman argument, completely unrelated things. Also, I’d love to see a source for these claims, as they seem very baseless to me.
Doesn’t make them any less conventional. Anything unique conceptually in his films is very surface level and he never does anything meaningful with the concept, they’re just gimmicks. It’s in the execution and details where creativity matters most, not in the concept of the film and nolan’s films are so generic in this regard that they could be written by today’s AI bots and still be of the same quality.
