>Nobody really likes Lynch
I do. He's not quite the artiste everyone pretends he is though. homie makes stick figures out of fetuses and calls it a day.
thats personally why i like him though, it's authentic and quirky. his soul shines through to the viewer and you understand it's his work and passion. there's an authenticity to it, full of imperfections and all, that is a relic of a bygone era. he is not above reproach though for some of his more suspect ideas.
>he is not above reproach though for some of his more suspect ideas.
I think some of those are a matter of personal taste, some people are utterly humorless.
Lynch has a lot of fans but there are a ton of dickriders who don't "get" his work at all. You don't talk about a lynch film, you think about it and talk about something else.
There's little to talk about directly. You can give a book report of scenes or try to discuss the symbolic but that isn't very enjoyable. Instead of being a pretentious tryhard, you talk about things related to it, your own experiences and what it conjured up in you. They're films you bait people into watching with the words thriller or lesbians so that they may come back more interesting than they were before. It's really good for that.
Lynch understands that art is like a Rorschach test. A successful artist is one who is able to more deeply evoke archetypal structures from the collective unconscious.
Rorschach tests are literal random ink blots, they're not expertly designed to evoke something, humans just ascribe meaning to meaningless things.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just meant it in the sense of an empty vessel that people are allowed fill with their own ideas. Lynch understands that he can only shape the vessel; the viewer must actually fill it with an interpretation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's true of every piece regardless what the artist thinks.
I appreciate the genuine response but Jesus Christ you seem like a pretentious midwit. >dude people need to watch this movie so they're more interesting to me, but if they think it's interesting to discuss why and how the movie conjured up things to them then they're pretentious tryhards
This is basically the narcissistic normie approach to film criticism in general: you just talk about your feelings and how "literally me" the movie is, and anybody who goes beyond that is just being a meanie trying to dab on me.
Are you implying that you aren't bored when you give a book report? But yes, watching someone struggle to describe what they saw and talking about abstract concepts they can relate to amuses me and is arguably the point of lynch's oeuvre.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've enjoyed some book reports back when I was in school, like Kafka's Trial, Ovid's Metamorphosis or Voltaire's Candide. I like understanding how a piece manages to do what it does to its audience. But discussing how a movie achieves things in an informal setting isn't exactly like a book report, you're not trying to get a good grade or impress your interlocutor, you're bouncing off someone and trying to understand the author's choices. Not explain, understand. >watching someone struggle to describe what they saw and talking about abstract concepts they can relate to amuses me and is arguably the point of lynch's oeuvre.
That's fine, but it's only unique to Lynch insofar as that's all there seems to be to his movies. Literally every movie deals in abstract concepts.
There's little to talk about directly. You can give a book report of scenes or try to discuss the symbolic but that isn't very enjoyable. Instead of being a pretentious tryhard, you talk about things related to it, your own experiences and what it conjured up in you. They're films you bait people into watching with the words thriller or lesbians so that they may come back more interesting than they were before. It's really good for that.
You like Lynch because you trick your mind into thinking you’re watching something deep when really you’re just getting meme’d on. It makes you feel like an intellectual, it’s why incel loners latch onto stuff like Lynch. That false intellectualism is the only sense of fulfillment they have
This is what I meant when I said earlier how Lynch exposes pseuds so easily. Aside from the obvious kind of Lynch pseuds who pretend to understand the nonexistant deep societal allegories in Lynch's work and are pretty much bullshitting to feel smart and fit in, he also exposes peopke like (you). People who think that Lynch stuff is supposed to be deep and intellectual when in reality it is the exact opposite and that's exactly what it is supposed to be. Lynch generally has no deeper meaning, it's just surrealism. He cuts out all the bullshit regular movies have, throws out all the logic and rules that only get in the way, so he can reach your emotions more directly. You are not supposed to think when you watch Lynch, you are supposed to feel.
QT easily, the man is basically just really good at making collages. Cutting out things he sees in other films and just pasting them with things he's seen in other films to make a new picture. Kubrick and Lynch at least paint their own pictures.
holy shit, we're finally getting a glimpse at what old-man Tarantino looks like. its that weird phenomenon where if you were familiar with the person beforehand you'll fish out their younger features from their old to compute with your accustomed vision of the person, but if you weren't familiar with them you'll fish out the old features and it just registers as "old man". does this make any sense? I think I might have Aspergers
its weird. also Kubrick registers to me as like two photos (picrel and the one in the OP) so I almost don't have any subconscious dynamic understanding of what Kubrick actually looks like
all three are fricking annoyingly overrated but kubrick is the only real master there even though he's a israelite with an annoying fanbase. tarantino is the worst cause he hasn't made anything great since the 90s.
I mean American filmmakers are all pretty much overrated. Kubrick is good indeed, Lynch is interesting and has something to say at least. Then you have a few good directors like PTA, maybe Ridley Scott, Orson Welles and Scorcese (who's not fully American either). Coppola had some good movies, some bad ones too. So did the Coen brothers. Eastwood makes very watchable films but they're not really art and don't exploit the medium to it's full extent, beyond just being a visualized novel telling a straight story.
I rate European and Asian directors higher tbqh. Some Russian movies (Hard to be a God, Petrov's flu, Russian Ark etc) feel like a refined opera compared to the gritty unrefined american movies. Kind of like a Dostoevsky novel vs a Steinbeck one. Steinbeck can tell very touching stories, but it's much more crude and crass, with a much more basic message.
One thing that I love about European cinema is that they rarely patronize the viewer. They don't overly explain everything but trust the viewer will piece things out and get the message. In a way it's snobbish because they treat movies like an exclusive art form that will necessarily be out of reach of a good chunk of the population, but I think that elitism is absolutely necessary in art. That stands true for music as well. I have nothing against plebs but they usually have shit taste.
>le artsy farty cinema
Jesus what a pretentious hack. American cinema is way superior by the fact they treat film making as a job and the same time producing a much superior films. Le art film is for redditBlack folk who think they intellectualy superior than anyone because they watch some films made by literal whos. Film and film making is an art regardless if it made by a pretentious hack from Europe or not
>American cinema is way superior by the fact they treat film making as a job and the same time producing a much superior films.
Watch more movies brainlet.
>Film and film making is an art regardless if it made by a pretentious hack from Europe or not
That much is true at least to some extent, but saying that people only watch artshit to feel superior is pretty transparently you projecting your insecurities.
Scorsese is very much wholy American, he grew up watching mafia flicks like the original Scarface. I'm sure he went to Sicily a handful of times to visit his nona but that hardly makes him actually Italian.
Also your post (if not yourself) confuses European cinema with European auteurs, the average European movie, especially the successful ones, are just as dumb as American ones.
>the average European movie, especially the successful ones, are just as dumb as American ones.
They are, in some ways, elevated above their american equivalents, if only slightly. It depends on the decade.
You and the italians do some really good trashy comedies every now and then. All we get are worse remakes with better actors.
2 years ago
Anonymous
We also do a lot of awful ones with no redeeming qualities that you don't even bother to remake.
This Bad Boys wannabe shit got 7 César Nominations. Seven. And it would have probably won some if it wasn't an explicitly pro-cop movie in a political climate where that's a big no-no.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Bad Boys wannabe
Not in the slightest. It was more of a dark comedy failure of a movie. Nominations mean nothing, bad movies get nominated all the time. Stop politicising everything and just ignore israelite media, focus on true kino. You'll get a tumor if you continue hating your country and hate watching things you don't like. I steered away from American cinema exactly because of this, because it's unbearably preachy lately. Yet you choose to go and watch the shittier version of the same kind of movies, probably pitched by a US pr counseling firm.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It literally has Michael Bay signature shots. And quit projecting, I watched it because it was recommended by a friend with whom we trade recs.
>Also your post (if not yourself) confuses European cinema with European auteurs, the average European movie, especially the successful ones, are just as dumb as American ones.
I was talking about the good movies from both sides of the Atlantic. I wasn't saying ALL American cinema is marvel shtick. But even your good auteur movies tend to suffer from overmarketing and being dumbed down for the average movie goer. PTA doesn't do that for instance which is why I really like his movies. People like Fincher or Spielberg have mastered the craft. They know how to make impecable movies style wise, story wise, tone wise. Yet they choose to make their movies dumb, shallow and cheesy. The more obscure indie directors tend to overdo it in the other direction (Safdie, Cassavetes) or do it in a crass and crude manor (Gallo). But the US have a great movie history, I don't deny that, especially when it comes to technique. But sticking to just american movies is very limiting when you have Buñuel, Sorrentino or Pialat kino around. Even today, Refn, Von Trier, Sorogoyen or Audiard are absolute kino masters.
Ah, you think good movies are only high brow auteur films, I see. >your good auteur movies
I'm French, m8. The thing is the American directors you named actually manage to find a relatively large audience, most artsy European directors only survive through subsidies, so it seems a bit like an unfair comparison. European arthouse films are more comparable to Sundance fare than to Coppola or Scott, who are themselves more like Besson.
>I'm French
That doesn't automatically make you not a pleb. I'm french too btw. >High brow
Even using pleb expressions.
Besson is the closest we have to dumb entertainment movies (more Michael Bay than Coppola or Ridley Scott, except if you meant Tony Scott) and his movies are not nearly as shallow as american blockbusters. Now go put an American bbc dildo up your ass you self hating homosexual. Watch Audiard or Costa Gavras movies, it's not high brow or whatever the frick, it's normal movies with no meme tricks. And it's good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Besson is the closest we have to dumb entertainment movies
Frenchies don't seem to like easily accessible entertainment, they seem to enjoy debate and struggle in order to see authenticity
2 years ago
Anonymous
Our box office is constantly topped by dumb comedies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I apologize, my statement was a bit inelegant for what I feel. Let me try again. From an American perspective I see a lot of "search for truth" themes that we don't really bother with much in our general audience film with the exception of Pixar. The most mainstream French film I know of is Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis which I think follows that mold
2 years ago
Anonymous
I have to agree, your run of the mill frogshit is closer to oscarbait or festival films than what we get for general release.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's an answer to "your movies" where you implied I'm American, not an attempt to appear like an authority. >Besson is the closest we have to dumb entertainment movies
Not that would be people like Jimenez, Pires or Leterrier, even ignoring all the shitty comedy peddlers. >self hating
Just because I'm not kneejerk shitting on Americans like it's my mission to be an annoying cliché doesn't mean I hate being French or what we produce. I have watched Audiard, it's just okay, I'll honestly take Klapish over him.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Jimenez, Pires or Leterrier
Who even watches those movies? Why get mad over homosexual litteral who directors? They're the Spike Lees and the Ron Howards of our movie industry. >Just because I'm not kneejerk shitting on Americans like it's my mission to be an annoying cliché doesn't mean I hate being French or what we produce.
I said European cinema, not french cinema. The US are a bigger country. Put together France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Denmark produce more good movies than the US every year, with better usage of the medium. >I have watched Audiard, it's just okay
What directors do you rate? >I'll honestly take Klapish over him.
Well... Stick to Snyder and Eastwood then, I don't know what to tell you.
>tarantino is the worst cause he hasn't made anything great since the 90s.
Tarantino has only made one (1) great scene, the jack rabbit slim.
Once upon a time in Hollywood is nice to watch. But it's not great either.
No one is looking for signs and symbolism and hidden messages of the fricking moon landing and making literal featur length documentaries about Lynch and Tarankino
Kubrick is the most overrated director ever just on the basis of how much people headcanon his movies
Kubrick just attracts genuine autismos far more so than Lynch and Tarantino, which is ironic as Tarantino is most definitely autistic whereas Kubrick is likely OCD or something.
Kubrick by a long shot. He is great, but not god.
QT does riffs on exploitation genre film, not meant to be any deeper than that
Lynch doesn't have a large enough actual following to be overrated
>QT does riffs on exploitation genre film, not meant to be any deeper than that
He used to have a unique filmmaking voice though. Even though Reservoir Dogs is at times almost a shot-for-shot remake of City on Fire, it still has a very distinct Tarantinoesque character. Concentrating on the aftermath and only depicting the "primary event" in brief flashbacks was a brilliant strategy. Pulp Fiction was a step in the wrong direction, as if continued this non-chronological structure, but for no underlying purpose other than to bring a false sense of resolution to a convoluted plot lacking any coherent narrative arc. And since then he has just churned out pastiche revenge-fantasy trash. While he has always been great at dialogue and set dressing, Tarantino couldn't think up a unique plot scenario to save his life.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was due to his editor. It's easy to ascribe some trait to the director, because it appears consistently in their films, but then you realize that they *always* collaborate with a specific person, and it becomes more questionable. For example, consider Tarantino's more recent cinematographer, Robert Richardson: I used to think the overexposed quality of Oliver Stone's and Scorsese's later films was part of the director's vision, but then I realized they all have the same cinematographer.
Editors are incredibly underrated, but even with a great one like Menke to save you, you still have to shoot with the editing in mind, even more so for Tarantino shooting on film. I agree that the final vision is the work of multiple parties.
She died of heat stroke in LA, hiking in 45 deg C temperatures like a moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I guess that's natural selection.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Once upon a time in Hollywood, her dead body was found in a ravine, no different than a reservoir dog. It reads like something out of a pulp fiction novel; it's hard to think of a more inglourious way to die. I guess she thought she was death proof?
>Kubrick by a long shot. He is great, but not god.
Nah he's definitely up there if we're being honest with ourselves. people only really saying this because he's the most "popular" best director. It's boring to see his name but you can't deny how impressive his filmography is.
Soderbergh hands down. All three are overrated in the sense they have inflated reputations, but at least the majority of what Fincher and PTA make is good. Soderbergh is fifty-fifty at best, and he’s made some downright dogshit. Also was behind the worst oscars ever until Will Smith happened.
Fincher is the bigger trash. He is visually competent but all of his movies' scripts suck (yes, even seven and social network). It is the work of a good director to improve on a mediocre screenplay to elevate the story, characters and dialogue. Fincher can't do it because he has never come up with anything original on his own. He's a glorified music video director.
Also that love and robots shirt was mediocre as hell. Felt embarrassed for him when I saw his name in the credits
Lynch. At this point there's a good chunk of people who understand that Tarantino is a hack, and Kubrick deserves at least some of the recognition he gets.
As a massive Kubrickgay, this is correct. Lynch is almost always correctly rated, probably more so than any other filmmaker. Tarantino is good but overrated by normies and Kubrick is slightly overrated by film buffs but by and by the praise is warranted.
Kubrick is the least overrated because his movies will be lavished over by critics and even the average movie fan for literal centuries to come.
Lynch isn't overrated because most people don't know him. He's really about where he should be in popularity, and his movies will be remembered (the better ones like Blue Velvet at least) for many years to come.
Tarantino is currently the most overrated. His movies won't be remembered in the coming decades (much) because he's just parroting over movies whilst offering no actual value to the viewer. Kubrick at least provides intellectual stimulation about secret societies and psychological trauma and the grand themes of man's place in the cosmos.
Then Lynch is all surrealist and psycho-sexual. Dream logic. He's weird, distinct, and unique.
But Tarantino just has 'coolness' and fun plots, but never cathartic or life-affirming. Never intellectually stimulating because everything is about some butthole getting one over on another butthole. Tarantino thinks a good ending is people dying unceremoniously. Fricking lame.
>Tarantino is currently the most overrated. His movies won't be remembered in the coming decades (much) because he's just parroting over movies whilst offering no actual value to the viewer.
That would be true if American cinema wasn't terminally enamored with nostalgia at least since the beginning of New Hollywood directors in the 70s making movies that are mostly informed by previous movies they liked. People like Spielberg, Scorsese or Lucas are still revered so there's no reason to think QT won't be.
I don't know, I enjoy them both, Jurassic Park is 1A or 1B all time for me, just saying that if overindulging into nostalgia was a key factor to directors getting forgotten the Hollywood landscape would look a lot different.
What that Kubrick is a freemason? That his own daughter was sold off as a sex slave? That Tom Cruise was in over his head as a scientologist and its reflected in his character? What part am I missing?
That the meaning of the secret society wasn't anything about a literal secret society. It's about how we wear masks and pretend to be sophisticated and civilised when there is shitloads of fricked up shit and degeneracy going on that we hide and don't advertise. The classy party with the passed out hooker upstairs at the beginning of the movie and the masked orgy are basically the same thing.
Tarantino for sure. He just mish mash shots, dialogue, ideas from older movies which isn't a bad thing per se. But that doesn't make him a great director nor his movies great
Kubrick by a mile. It's not that his films are worse than the others, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that he is the filmmaker praised most often by people who haven't actually seen or liked his movies. He is to famous filmmakers what Citizen Kane is to movies or the Mona Lisa is to paintings. He's a safe and non-controversial answer that can go on any "best of" list without actually having to think too hard about it
That doesn't mean he's bad. People always think of the holy med trinity of Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon whenever they think of great conquerors and generals, because they're the absolute best and nobody comes close. Than you have the eternal contrarian homosexuals that will say Hannibal (Lynch fans) or the dweebs that will say akchtcually Genghis Khan (Kurosawa fans).
>That doesn't mean he's bad
For sure, he isn't anywhere close to bad. He's exceptional by any reasonable metric, but that's part of the problem. If someone tells me Quentin Tarantino is the best filmmaker of all time, it might be a weird take, but I have no doubt that that's their honest opinion. With Kubrick I'm less certain. Could be their opinion, but it could just as easily be the answer they think sounds the smartest
I don't know if the Mona Lisa is widely considered one of the best paintings in history. It's famous and valuable because of its author and history, but that's about it.
I think if you were to ask 100 random people on the street what the best painting of all time is, "Mona Lisa" is going to be the most common answer by virtue of name recognition
Pretty much every other cliché famous painting is better than the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is good, but it's completely bland and artistically there are so many (famous) works that it pales in comparison to. It is fricking nobody's favorite painting.
Your pic is even blander though. Dutch painters are waaaaay overrated. They just happen to be the only people up north that could use their 10 fingers so they're blown out of proportion.
Anyway, for me, it's russian neo realism.
Neither of them. They're all excellent directors, each in their own way, and they are more valuable to culture than billions of other people, including dilettantes and mediocrities in the movie business.
Probably. I still like Kubrick more overall than Tarantino (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was the first movie of his I actually loved) but the QT worship seems to have died down.
I don't think Full Metal Jacket is beloved. Eyes Wide Shut was divisive for a long time and only getting the respect I believe it was deserved now. Yes, Paths of Glory is great.
Lynch I don’t wanna hear or see shit from some gayboy that does his hair like that goofy cornball loud talking try hard go make another putin video ya knutcase
If any of these are actually overrated it's Tarantino. His movies are good, damn good sometimes. The hype he receives however is not warranted. Especially after Once upon a Time in Hollywood.
Kubrick is impossible to overrate because he never made a bad movie. Also no one ever talks about Kubrick. They talk about his movies, unlike uno farto man. Lynch isn't well known and his stuff is good.
>Which one is the most overrated?
Tarantino without a single doubt. He just copies movies from the 70's and remixes it with some 'LOL so random' events. Style no substance incarnate.
I don't consider tarantino to even be that highly rated so I wouldn't call him over rated, he's about right where he's at. Between Lynch and Kubrick I'd go with Kubrick but they're both pretty overrrated. Babby's first cinema class tier
Tarantino, but Lynch is also overrated. Lynch is good, but his reputation is *way* overblown compared to his actual work.
Kubrick is kinda like Led Zepplin, he's regarded as highly as possible but at the same time he actually is as good as everyone says.
Lynch. Kubrick is a legitimate genius whose like we may never see again. Tarantino is generally regarded as a maker of 'fun' movies and not much more, and as such is neither overrated nor underrated.
>Michael Palin:
Monty Python was a game changer as far as comedy goes and although some individual sketches and episodes have aged poorly most of it is still very funny, the films are still kino too. His travel documentaries/ adventures are all classics and capture the time and mood of the places he visited perfectly.
Verdict:Defiantly not overrated
>Bill Murray
Ghost Busters was pretty good as was Groundhog Day, quite original too. However, the rest of his work has been fairly mediocre, proof you can't bottle lightning.
Verdict: Probably a little bit overrated.
>Stanly Kubrick
What a car crash. He has made films such as:
The one about the mad computer that turned into a magic lantern show for the last half hour for no reason.
You'll only remember the first half (a film about some guy shooting his drill Sargent, I can't remember what else happened).
A filthy nonce film.
A comedy with no jokes that made fun out of cripples.
Lets ignore Steven Kings book, because I know better: THE MOVIE.
Lynch by fat. Lynch could make a 4 hour black and white film of pain drying and his fanboys would call it "art"
Tarantino gets a pass because he made Django and said Black person every five minutes and when people called him out on it he told them to frick off.
Kubrick made films that were not only visually appealing but made you analyze them on a deeper level. Love them or hate em there are reasons why people still talk about The Shining and 2001 40 years later.
Your mum
Out of these 3, probably Tarantula
Tarantino.
Nobody really likes Lynch. They just say they do to get arthoe pussy.
>Nobody really likes Lynch
I do. He's not quite the artiste everyone pretends he is though. homie makes stick figures out of fetuses and calls it a day.
thats personally why i like him though, it's authentic and quirky. his soul shines through to the viewer and you understand it's his work and passion. there's an authenticity to it, full of imperfections and all, that is a relic of a bygone era. he is not above reproach though for some of his more suspect ideas.
>he is not above reproach though for some of his more suspect ideas.
I think some of those are a matter of personal taste, some people are utterly humorless.
It honestly feels fake as frick to me.
Tarantino looks like my aunt now kek
Lynch has a lot of fans but there are a ton of dickriders who don't "get" his work at all. You don't talk about a lynch film, you think about it and talk about something else.
>You don't talk about a lynch film, you think about it and talk about something else.
Why?
There's little to talk about directly. You can give a book report of scenes or try to discuss the symbolic but that isn't very enjoyable. Instead of being a pretentious tryhard, you talk about things related to it, your own experiences and what it conjured up in you. They're films you bait people into watching with the words thriller or lesbians so that they may come back more interesting than they were before. It's really good for that.
Lynch understands that art is like a Rorschach test. A successful artist is one who is able to more deeply evoke archetypal structures from the collective unconscious.
Rorschach tests are literal random ink blots, they're not expertly designed to evoke something, humans just ascribe meaning to meaningless things.
I just meant it in the sense of an empty vessel that people are allowed fill with their own ideas. Lynch understands that he can only shape the vessel; the viewer must actually fill it with an interpretation.
That's true of every piece regardless what the artist thinks.
I appreciate the genuine response but Jesus Christ you seem like a pretentious midwit.
>dude people need to watch this movie so they're more interesting to me, but if they think it's interesting to discuss why and how the movie conjured up things to them then they're pretentious tryhards
This is basically the narcissistic normie approach to film criticism in general: you just talk about your feelings and how "literally me" the movie is, and anybody who goes beyond that is just being a meanie trying to dab on me.
Are you implying that you aren't bored when you give a book report? But yes, watching someone struggle to describe what they saw and talking about abstract concepts they can relate to amuses me and is arguably the point of lynch's oeuvre.
I've enjoyed some book reports back when I was in school, like Kafka's Trial, Ovid's Metamorphosis or Voltaire's Candide. I like understanding how a piece manages to do what it does to its audience. But discussing how a movie achieves things in an informal setting isn't exactly like a book report, you're not trying to get a good grade or impress your interlocutor, you're bouncing off someone and trying to understand the author's choices. Not explain, understand.
>watching someone struggle to describe what they saw and talking about abstract concepts they can relate to amuses me and is arguably the point of lynch's oeuvre.
That's fine, but it's only unique to Lynch insofar as that's all there seems to be to his movies. Literally every movie deals in abstract concepts.
And people say David Lynch fans are pretentious!
>Nobody really likes Lynch.
midwits actually believe this
bump
Tarantino obviously and it's not even close.
I love Lynch's work. Except Inland Empire, which sucks.
Lynch films are so very accessible it's quite easy to be into them.
Thing is they are not very popular is all.
david chase did lynch better than lynch ever did lynch
Cringe
filtered
Cringe
i'm an incel virgin i've never touched or even talked to a woman and i like lynch
You like Lynch because you trick your mind into thinking you’re watching something deep when really you’re just getting meme’d on. It makes you feel like an intellectual, it’s why incel loners latch onto stuff like Lynch. That false intellectualism is the only sense of fulfillment they have
This is what I meant when I said earlier how Lynch exposes pseuds so easily. Aside from the obvious kind of Lynch pseuds who pretend to understand the nonexistant deep societal allegories in Lynch's work and are pretty much bullshitting to feel smart and fit in, he also exposes peopke like (you). People who think that Lynch stuff is supposed to be deep and intellectual when in reality it is the exact opposite and that's exactly what it is supposed to be. Lynch generally has no deeper meaning, it's just surrealism. He cuts out all the bullshit regular movies have, throws out all the logic and rules that only get in the way, so he can reach your emotions more directly. You are not supposed to think when you watch Lynch, you are supposed to feel.
Didn’t read but you just know it’s a butthurt lynch pleb
Shame you'll never know just how fricking hard you got btfo'd
Yea you sure got me. Now go to your room and celebrate with a Lynch marathon
Feelings are for women and queers
based
cringe
for hipsters: lynch
for low iq normies: qt
for regular normies: kubric
only acceptable answer
I wonder what you fricking watch?
Actual kino perhaps. Not what a teenage boy thinks is kino
Name one director you like.
Bresson, the list goes on
he listed these people being percieved as overrated by those specific groups, how is that talking bad about them in any way?
Russ Meyer
this and I like all of them
no need to get defensive over the assessment
/thread
Tarantino is not even in the same league as Lynch and Kubrick
Tarantulino, but that isn't saying much. They are all pretty great at their craft.
Tino. Kubrick hasn’t made a movie since 98 and Lynch hasn’t since 2006
>Kubrick hasn’t made a movie since 98
He literally died the year after
>Kubrick hasn’t made a movie since 98
What a hack
Fincher by far
filtered
2, 3, 1
the shinning is the best though
Tarantino is pure shit
Tarantino.
He's made what, 2 good films. And they've dated really badly
Reservoir and pulp fiction are dated? I haven’t watched those in years but they still held up fine
QT easily, the man is basically just really good at making collages. Cutting out things he sees in other films and just pasting them with things he's seen in other films to make a new picture. Kubrick and Lynch at least paint their own pictures.
holy shit, we're finally getting a glimpse at what old-man Tarantino looks like. its that weird phenomenon where if you were familiar with the person beforehand you'll fish out their younger features from their old to compute with your accustomed vision of the person, but if you weren't familiar with them you'll fish out the old features and it just registers as "old man". does this make any sense? I think I might have Aspergers
You do but it's okay we're all here together.
I get what you're saying, that other guy is just dumb or has no imagination. Same thing happened to me with Robin Williams and Johnny Depp.
its weird. also Kubrick registers to me as like two photos (picrel and the one in the OP) so I almost don't have any subconscious dynamic understanding of what Kubrick actually looks like
all three are fricking annoyingly overrated but kubrick is the only real master there even though he's a israelite with an annoying fanbase. tarantino is the worst cause he hasn't made anything great since the 90s.
I mean American filmmakers are all pretty much overrated. Kubrick is good indeed, Lynch is interesting and has something to say at least. Then you have a few good directors like PTA, maybe Ridley Scott, Orson Welles and Scorcese (who's not fully American either). Coppola had some good movies, some bad ones too. So did the Coen brothers. Eastwood makes very watchable films but they're not really art and don't exploit the medium to it's full extent, beyond just being a visualized novel telling a straight story.
I rate European and Asian directors higher tbqh. Some Russian movies (Hard to be a God, Petrov's flu, Russian Ark etc) feel like a refined opera compared to the gritty unrefined american movies. Kind of like a Dostoevsky novel vs a Steinbeck one. Steinbeck can tell very touching stories, but it's much more crude and crass, with a much more basic message.
One thing that I love about European cinema is that they rarely patronize the viewer. They don't overly explain everything but trust the viewer will piece things out and get the message. In a way it's snobbish because they treat movies like an exclusive art form that will necessarily be out of reach of a good chunk of the population, but I think that elitism is absolutely necessary in art. That stands true for music as well. I have nothing against plebs but they usually have shit taste.
>le artsy farty cinema
Jesus what a pretentious hack. American cinema is way superior by the fact they treat film making as a job and the same time producing a much superior films. Le art film is for redditBlack folk who think they intellectualy superior than anyone because they watch some films made by literal whos. Film and film making is an art regardless if it made by a pretentious hack from Europe or not
>American cinema is way superior by the fact they treat film making as a job and the same time producing a much superior films.
Watch more movies brainlet.
kek keep coping and reddit is over that way sir
>Film and film making is an art regardless if it made by a pretentious hack from Europe or not
That much is true at least to some extent, but saying that people only watch artshit to feel superior is pretty transparently you projecting your insecurities.
homie u sound pretentious af
Scorsese is very much wholy American, he grew up watching mafia flicks like the original Scarface. I'm sure he went to Sicily a handful of times to visit his nona but that hardly makes him actually Italian.
Also your post (if not yourself) confuses European cinema with European auteurs, the average European movie, especially the successful ones, are just as dumb as American ones.
>the average European movie, especially the successful ones, are just as dumb as American ones.
They are, in some ways, elevated above their american equivalents, if only slightly. It depends on the decade.
Horseshit.
t. Pierre
You and the italians do some really good trashy comedies every now and then. All we get are worse remakes with better actors.
We also do a lot of awful ones with no redeeming qualities that you don't even bother to remake.
This Bad Boys wannabe shit got 7 César Nominations. Seven. And it would have probably won some if it wasn't an explicitly pro-cop movie in a political climate where that's a big no-no.
>Bad Boys wannabe
Not in the slightest. It was more of a dark comedy failure of a movie. Nominations mean nothing, bad movies get nominated all the time. Stop politicising everything and just ignore israelite media, focus on true kino. You'll get a tumor if you continue hating your country and hate watching things you don't like. I steered away from American cinema exactly because of this, because it's unbearably preachy lately. Yet you choose to go and watch the shittier version of the same kind of movies, probably pitched by a US pr counseling firm.
It literally has Michael Bay signature shots. And quit projecting, I watched it because it was recommended by a friend with whom we trade recs.
>Also your post (if not yourself) confuses European cinema with European auteurs, the average European movie, especially the successful ones, are just as dumb as American ones.
I was talking about the good movies from both sides of the Atlantic. I wasn't saying ALL American cinema is marvel shtick. But even your good auteur movies tend to suffer from overmarketing and being dumbed down for the average movie goer. PTA doesn't do that for instance which is why I really like his movies. People like Fincher or Spielberg have mastered the craft. They know how to make impecable movies style wise, story wise, tone wise. Yet they choose to make their movies dumb, shallow and cheesy. The more obscure indie directors tend to overdo it in the other direction (Safdie, Cassavetes) or do it in a crass and crude manor (Gallo). But the US have a great movie history, I don't deny that, especially when it comes to technique. But sticking to just american movies is very limiting when you have Buñuel, Sorrentino or Pialat kino around. Even today, Refn, Von Trier, Sorogoyen or Audiard are absolute kino masters.
Ah, you think good movies are only high brow auteur films, I see.
>your good auteur movies
I'm French, m8. The thing is the American directors you named actually manage to find a relatively large audience, most artsy European directors only survive through subsidies, so it seems a bit like an unfair comparison. European arthouse films are more comparable to Sundance fare than to Coppola or Scott, who are themselves more like Besson.
>I'm French
That doesn't automatically make you not a pleb. I'm french too btw.
>High brow
Even using pleb expressions.
Besson is the closest we have to dumb entertainment movies (more Michael Bay than Coppola or Ridley Scott, except if you meant Tony Scott) and his movies are not nearly as shallow as american blockbusters. Now go put an American bbc dildo up your ass you self hating homosexual. Watch Audiard or Costa Gavras movies, it's not high brow or whatever the frick, it's normal movies with no meme tricks. And it's good.
>Besson is the closest we have to dumb entertainment movies
Frenchies don't seem to like easily accessible entertainment, they seem to enjoy debate and struggle in order to see authenticity
Our box office is constantly topped by dumb comedies.
I apologize, my statement was a bit inelegant for what I feel. Let me try again. From an American perspective I see a lot of "search for truth" themes that we don't really bother with much in our general audience film with the exception of Pixar. The most mainstream French film I know of is Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis which I think follows that mold
I have to agree, your run of the mill frogshit is closer to oscarbait or festival films than what we get for general release.
It's an answer to "your movies" where you implied I'm American, not an attempt to appear like an authority.
>Besson is the closest we have to dumb entertainment movies
Not that would be people like Jimenez, Pires or Leterrier, even ignoring all the shitty comedy peddlers.
>self hating
Just because I'm not kneejerk shitting on Americans like it's my mission to be an annoying cliché doesn't mean I hate being French or what we produce. I have watched Audiard, it's just okay, I'll honestly take Klapish over him.
>Jimenez, Pires or Leterrier
Who even watches those movies? Why get mad over homosexual litteral who directors? They're the Spike Lees and the Ron Howards of our movie industry.
>Just because I'm not kneejerk shitting on Americans like it's my mission to be an annoying cliché doesn't mean I hate being French or what we produce.
I said European cinema, not french cinema. The US are a bigger country. Put together France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Denmark produce more good movies than the US every year, with better usage of the medium.
>I have watched Audiard, it's just okay
What directors do you rate?
>I'll honestly take Klapish over him.
Well... Stick to Snyder and Eastwood then, I don't know what to tell you.
>tarantino is the worst cause he hasn't made anything great since the 90s.
Tarantino has only made one (1) great scene, the jack rabbit slim.
Once upon a time in Hollywood is nice to watch. But it's not great either.
Uno Farto
Tortellini. I enjoyed his last two movies though
Kubrick
Tarantino easily
Genuinely INARGUABLY Kubrick
No one is looking for signs and symbolism and hidden messages of the fricking moon landing and making literal featur length documentaries about Lynch and Tarankino
Kubrick is the most overrated director ever just on the basis of how much people headcanon his movies
Kubrick just attracts genuine autismos far more so than Lynch and Tarantino, which is ironic as Tarantino is most definitely autistic whereas Kubrick is likely OCD or something.
>making literal featur length documentaries about Lynch and Tarankino
Yeah they are.
it do be like that sometimes
On Cinemaphile? Lynch
As a whole it's QT
Tarantino, easily.
Barry Lyndon is better than QT's entire filmography put together. Lynch is ok.
This
Mulholland Drive is considered the best film of the century so far. Clearly Lynch.
Mullholland Drive is pretty great though, and the fact he just tells people to frick off whenever they ask any questions about his films is funny.
Tarantino without a shadow of a doubt
kubrick
Kubrick by a long shot. He is great, but not god.
QT does riffs on exploitation genre film, not meant to be any deeper than that
Lynch doesn't have a large enough actual following to be overrated
>QT does riffs on exploitation genre film, not meant to be any deeper than that
He used to have a unique filmmaking voice though. Even though Reservoir Dogs is at times almost a shot-for-shot remake of City on Fire, it still has a very distinct Tarantinoesque character. Concentrating on the aftermath and only depicting the "primary event" in brief flashbacks was a brilliant strategy. Pulp Fiction was a step in the wrong direction, as if continued this non-chronological structure, but for no underlying purpose other than to bring a false sense of resolution to a convoluted plot lacking any coherent narrative arc. And since then he has just churned out pastiche revenge-fantasy trash. While he has always been great at dialogue and set dressing, Tarantino couldn't think up a unique plot scenario to save his life.
Tarantino still has a distinct rhythm in his pacing of sequences that is consistent even in his later films
I wouldn't be surprised if that was due to his editor. It's easy to ascribe some trait to the director, because it appears consistently in their films, but then you realize that they *always* collaborate with a specific person, and it becomes more questionable. For example, consider Tarantino's more recent cinematographer, Robert Richardson: I used to think the overexposed quality of Oliver Stone's and Scorsese's later films was part of the director's vision, but then I realized they all have the same cinematographer.
Editors are incredibly underrated, but even with a great one like Menke to save you, you still have to shoot with the editing in mind, even more so for Tarantino shooting on film. I agree that the final vision is the work of multiple parties.
Tarantino's original editor gets a lot of credit, he let her go after Inglorious Basterds though.
She died of heat stroke in LA, hiking in 45 deg C temperatures like a moron.
I guess that's natural selection.
Once upon a time in Hollywood, her dead body was found in a ravine, no different than a reservoir dog. It reads like something out of a pulp fiction novel; it's hard to think of a more inglourious way to die. I guess she thought she was death proof?
>Kubrick by a long shot. He is great, but not god.
Nah he's definitely up there if we're being honest with ourselves. people only really saying this because he's the most "popular" best director. It's boring to see his name but you can't deny how impressive his filmography is.
Quentin "When I See Your Feet You'll Smell What I Eat" Tarantino is pretty overrated.
Thats not kubrick, moron. Thats Werner Herzog you homosexual.
lol
lmao even
Tarantino, the other two are more mischaracterised by their fans than overrated
Kubrick, no question asked. lynch is also pretty bad, babby first surrealist.
Lynched
a more fun debate
Absolutely no idea who they are.
Soderbergh hands down. All three are overrated in the sense they have inflated reputations, but at least the majority of what Fincher and PTA make is good. Soderbergh is fifty-fifty at best, and he’s made some downright dogshit. Also was behind the worst oscars ever until Will Smith happened.
You leave Paul Thomas Anderson out of this!!
nah. PTA actually made a decent film. frick you
are these all the same person at different stages of their life?
Fincher is the bigger trash. He is visually competent but all of his movies' scripts suck (yes, even seven and social network). It is the work of a good director to improve on a mediocre screenplay to elevate the story, characters and dialogue. Fincher can't do it because he has never come up with anything original on his own. He's a glorified music video director.
Also that love and robots shirt was mediocre as hell. Felt embarrassed for him when I saw his name in the credits
soderbergh easily, although the knick is pure kino
Tarantryhard. Although if one excludes Mulholland Drive and Dr. Strangelove, the other two are almost as overrated.
BETTER YET, which one is more edgy, Lars von Trier or Gaspar Noe?
Lynch. At this point there's a good chunk of people who understand that Tarantino is a hack, and Kubrick deserves at least some of the recognition he gets.
DEAD
Black person
STORAGE
I don't know any of them so I'm going to guess and say right
Lol you gays don’t even try anymore. I for one blame porn
Tarantino is trash, he copies alters and pastes compositions into film. There are no homages, just stolen material.
He is trash.
Tarantino and it's not even close lmao
Tarantino.
The feetgay
Do you have to ask? Tarantino is a super hack compared to both
kubrick
lynch, not even close
None of them are overrated.
No one make fart house surrealism movies like Lynch do. He might not be the best but he's extremely unique.
Tarantino movies are extremely fun to watch. it's not that deep.
Kubrick made The Shinning, 2001, Path of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, FMJ and many more.
Tarantino is overrated by normies and Kubrick is overrated by film buffs
Lynch is correctly rated
As a massive Kubrickgay, this is correct. Lynch is almost always correctly rated, probably more so than any other filmmaker. Tarantino is good but overrated by normies and Kubrick is slightly overrated by film buffs but by and by the praise is warranted.
>Tarantino is good but overrated by normies
I don't know why people keep saying this.
He's properly rated by NORMIES.
He's made FUN movies that literally everyone can enjoy while people like Lynch made movies for fart house audience.
His movies are violent yet funny and his dialogue is just "fun".
Get a load of this low iq Tarantino protector.
>DUDE FUN LMAO ITS FUNNY AND FUN HES FUN
Scholarly analysis there my friend. Well done
You think Lynch made the second best movie of all time? Because that's how high critics rate him.
Lynch.
Tarantino and Kubrick are just riding off of past successes. Lynch has never made a good movie in his life.
Tarantino
He's a middling filmmaker but midwits call him a genius
Tortellini. Overrated and a talentless hack
Kubrick is the least overrated because his movies will be lavished over by critics and even the average movie fan for literal centuries to come.
Lynch isn't overrated because most people don't know him. He's really about where he should be in popularity, and his movies will be remembered (the better ones like Blue Velvet at least) for many years to come.
Tarantino is currently the most overrated. His movies won't be remembered in the coming decades (much) because he's just parroting over movies whilst offering no actual value to the viewer. Kubrick at least provides intellectual stimulation about secret societies and psychological trauma and the grand themes of man's place in the cosmos.
Then Lynch is all surrealist and psycho-sexual. Dream logic. He's weird, distinct, and unique.
But Tarantino just has 'coolness' and fun plots, but never cathartic or life-affirming. Never intellectually stimulating because everything is about some butthole getting one over on another butthole. Tarantino thinks a good ending is people dying unceremoniously. Fricking lame.
>Tarantino is currently the most overrated. His movies won't be remembered in the coming decades (much) because he's just parroting over movies whilst offering no actual value to the viewer.
That would be true if American cinema wasn't terminally enamored with nostalgia at least since the beginning of New Hollywood directors in the 70s making movies that are mostly informed by previous movies they liked. People like Spielberg, Scorsese or Lucas are still revered so there's no reason to think QT won't be.
The directors films you just mentioned aren’t carried by le cool dialogue
No but they have their own crutches. It's no coincidence that John Williams was a regular composer for 2 of them.
I don't know, I enjoy them both, Jurassic Park is 1A or 1B all time for me, just saying that if overindulging into nostalgia was a key factor to directors getting forgotten the Hollywood landscape would look a lot different.
what is it like not being able to enjoy tarantula and spielberg?
>Kubrick at least provides intellectual stimulation about secret societies
moron pseud completely missed the point of the movie
What that Kubrick is a freemason? That his own daughter was sold off as a sex slave? That Tom Cruise was in over his head as a scientologist and its reflected in his character? What part am I missing?
That the meaning of the secret society wasn't anything about a literal secret society. It's about how we wear masks and pretend to be sophisticated and civilised when there is shitloads of fricked up shit and degeneracy going on that we hide and don't advertise. The classy party with the passed out hooker upstairs at the beginning of the movie and the masked orgy are basically the same thing.
Bacchanalia
Anyone who thinks their movies are for pseuds are pseuds themselves. Especially Lynch, dude is a perfect pseud/artlet filter.
Kubrick, but that's only because he's babby's first arthouse. Still a top ten director personally.
Lynch
Tarantino for sure. He just mish mash shots, dialogue, ideas from older movies which isn't a bad thing per se. But that doesn't make him a great director nor his movies great
Kubrick's name has never been attached to an indisputably bad movie, unlike Lynch and Tarantino.
Kubrick by a mile. It's not that his films are worse than the others, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that he is the filmmaker praised most often by people who haven't actually seen or liked his movies. He is to famous filmmakers what Citizen Kane is to movies or the Mona Lisa is to paintings. He's a safe and non-controversial answer that can go on any "best of" list without actually having to think too hard about it
That doesn't mean he's bad. People always think of the holy med trinity of Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon whenever they think of great conquerors and generals, because they're the absolute best and nobody comes close. Than you have the eternal contrarian homosexuals that will say Hannibal (Lynch fans) or the dweebs that will say akchtcually Genghis Khan (Kurosawa fans).
>That doesn't mean he's bad
For sure, he isn't anywhere close to bad. He's exceptional by any reasonable metric, but that's part of the problem. If someone tells me Quentin Tarantino is the best filmmaker of all time, it might be a weird take, but I have no doubt that that's their honest opinion. With Kubrick I'm less certain. Could be their opinion, but it could just as easily be the answer they think sounds the smartest
I don't know if the Mona Lisa is widely considered one of the best paintings in history. It's famous and valuable because of its author and history, but that's about it.
I think if you were to ask 100 random people on the street what the best painting of all time is, "Mona Lisa" is going to be the most common answer by virtue of name recognition
I'd honestly be curious.
They would say “the sixteenth chapel”
Pretty much every other cliché famous painting is better than the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is good, but it's completely bland and artistically there are so many (famous) works that it pales in comparison to. It is fricking nobody's favorite painting.
Your pic is even blander though. Dutch painters are waaaaay overrated. They just happen to be the only people up north that could use their 10 fingers so they're blown out of proportion.
Anyway, for me, it's russian neo realism.
Oh frick off, Rembrandts are never bland
kubrick and it's not even close
Neither of them. They're all excellent directors, each in their own way, and they are more valuable to culture than billions of other people, including dilettantes and mediocrities in the movie business.
lynch because half of his fans have never watched his films. at least with tarantino and kubrick fans every one of them have seen pulp fiction or 2001
Lynch is one of those style is substance guys
getting Lynched is fun if you're into it
Kubrick. Tarantino isn't overrated anymore like he was in the early/mid 2000s. Kubrick is great but obnoxiously worshipped
as a fan of all three directors, i agree
Probably. I still like Kubrick more overall than Tarantino (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was the first movie of his I actually loved) but the QT worship seems to have died down.
I don't think Full Metal Jacket is beloved. Eyes Wide Shut was divisive for a long time and only getting the respect I believe it was deserved now. Yes, Paths of Glory is great.
true. people who have seen FMJ but aren't fans of it only remember the front half
shit opinion, kubrick deserves every bit of praise he gets
Lynch I don’t wanna hear or see shit from some gayboy that does his hair like that goofy cornball loud talking try hard go make another putin video ya knutcase
Lynch for sure. I don't think Kubric is overrated at all.
Lynch and it's not even close
/thread
QT is the only one I've "grown out of"
If any of these are actually overrated it's Tarantino. His movies are good, damn good sometimes. The hype he receives however is not warranted. Especially after Once upon a Time in Hollywood.
Kubrick is impossible to overrate because he never made a bad movie. Also no one ever talks about Kubrick. They talk about his movies, unlike uno farto man. Lynch isn't well known and his stuff is good.
>Which one is the most overrated?
Tarantino without a single doubt. He just copies movies from the 70's and remixes it with some 'LOL so random' events. Style no substance incarnate.
I don't consider tarantino to even be that highly rated so I wouldn't call him over rated, he's about right where he's at. Between Lynch and Kubrick I'd go with Kubrick but they're both pretty overrrated. Babby's first cinema class tier
Tarantino. I can't even watch his films anymore, fricking garbage
i look like tarantino in this pic and im 25
Put the bottle and cigarette down
Either keep the slav criminal slick back look or do Jeff Bezos. Both optiins will make you look like a fricking boss.
I always forget how weird his ears look.
king
Tarantino, but Lynch is also overrated. Lynch is good, but his reputation is *way* overblown compared to his actual work.
Kubrick is kinda like Led Zepplin, he's regarded as highly as possible but at the same time he actually is as good as everyone says.
>comparing Kubrick to a glorified hack cover band
Lynch. Kubrick is a legitimate genius whose like we may never see again. Tarantino is generally regarded as a maker of 'fun' movies and not much more, and as such is neither overrated nor underrated.
Lynch obviously.
Probably Tarantino but he's still my favourite of the three
Tarantino is for 13-18 year olds
Lynch is for 18-21 year olds
Kubrick is for 21 and up
>Yea you sure got me. Now go to your room and celebrate with a Lynch marathon
Left to right:
>Michael Palin:
Monty Python was a game changer as far as comedy goes and although some individual sketches and episodes have aged poorly most of it is still very funny, the films are still kino too. His travel documentaries/ adventures are all classics and capture the time and mood of the places he visited perfectly.
Verdict:Defiantly not overrated
>Bill Murray
Ghost Busters was pretty good as was Groundhog Day, quite original too. However, the rest of his work has been fairly mediocre, proof you can't bottle lightning.
Verdict: Probably a little bit overrated.
>Stanly Kubrick
What a car crash. He has made films such as:
The one about the mad computer that turned into a magic lantern show for the last half hour for no reason.
You'll only remember the first half (a film about some guy shooting his drill Sargent, I can't remember what else happened).
A filthy nonce film.
A comedy with no jokes that made fun out of cripples.
Lets ignore Steven Kings book, because I know better: THE MOVIE.
Verdict: Extremely overrated.
Late-era Kubrick is overrated; early Kubrick is underrated. Watch Paths of Glory.
Lynch by fat. Lynch could make a 4 hour black and white film of pain drying and his fanboys would call it "art"
Tarantino gets a pass because he made Django and said Black person every five minutes and when people called him out on it he told them to frick off.
Kubrick made films that were not only visually appealing but made you analyze them on a deeper level. Love them or hate em there are reasons why people still talk about The Shining and 2001 40 years later.