What did he mean bu this?

What did he mean bu this?

Is he right?

>Sup Forums
>having good taste in film

of course

for one, he is a douche with a derivative aesthetic that, although not seen often in mainstream cinema, is nothing new, original, or engaging. furthermore, he masks his stale tropes, plots, and dialogue with this trite aesthetic, hoping that his ignorant audiences will not catch on to his obviously disingenuous charade. as such, his films are the true litmus test for detecting plebs that think they have good taste in film, yet are really cinema cretins, groveling to a false a lord

second, the very aesthetic earlier criticized has not changed throughout the entirety of wes anderson's career, proving that this "visionary" filmmaker is nothing more than a hack, a one-trick pony who cannot step outside the box or take cinematic chances

third, wes anderson is clearly a pedo and pedo-enabler, making films that sexualize little children all so he can get him and his giant child loving ego off

>the very aesthetic earlier criticized has not changed throughout the entirety of wes anderson's career

John Williams' and Hans Zimmer's compositions all sound similar. You can tell who wrote the music. Does that make them bad composers?

Why is having a signature style a bad thing?

>Hans Zimmer
Has quite a few tricks up his sleeve and I know this even though I'm barely engaged with the soundtracks he composes.

And there's signature style and then there's being a one trick pony.
Guess which one Anderson is?

Here's a cool trick of you have the time on how to determine whether or not Anderson is a fucking fraudulent hack, sit down one day and watch all his movies from Life Aquatic to whatever his new shit stain is.

Just watch and see how long it takes you to get fucking tired of the humour. I can watch Signs once in a while and get a few laughs but watching multiple Anderson movies is a fucking nightmare.

It's all the same stilted awkward humour for hours on end. It gets fucking boring really quickly.
Whether Shymalan knew that the humour from Signs would get dull if he tried to repeat it or it just wasn't a product of his own creation, Signs shines all the more for it.

Which is why I hate the fact Anderson movies exist, its like if someone else tried to recreate the sistine chapel, did a worse job of it and then somehow got praised for it. Those movies are eroding the incredibly beautiful niche in comedy and drama that movie carved out for itself.

No, Wes Anderson is one of the few auteurs out there.

Please explain why.

No, I don't converse with actual retards.

Good day.

Breaking News:Wes Anderson fans as clueless as he is

Though I don't really agree with the OP or the extreme Wes Anderson hate I do have to say that I can't watch his movies.

I don't like the style that he shoots in at all. The Grand Budapest Hotel was my introduction to him and I rarely feel that something is as gimmicky as his film making. After seeing that and seeing some of his other things I feel like I fully understand his schtick and it continues to do absolutely nothing for me.

I don't hate him, but I won't go see any of his new movies in all likelihood. He's repetitive in the same way that a lot of the 'artistic' side scrolling indie games are repetitive these days.

No one's forcing you to watch his movies, dickhead.

I enjoy the films of Wes Anderson and I don't care that they're packed to the gills with whimsy. God forbid a filmmaker have fun with his visuals once in a while. And God forbid he tells a story his own way without worrying whether or not the characters are realistic. Shame on him for making small-scale films in the service of having fun.

No, what we need more of is the Zack Snyder aesthetic. More slo-mo and colorless frames. And more characters who lack any sense of humor whatsoever.

not that guy but technically someone can be an auteur so long as they adhere to a certain visionary style throughout their films. but I guess you can be a good or bad auteur. like technically Tarantino is an auteur. I'm not arguing for or against Anderson as being good or bad at what he does, just that he's an auteur director.

my personal opinion though is that I like his movies. they are a comfortable watch and feel pretty fresh. I think he's a creative mind in general. for anybody to come up with shit as original as him deserves some recognition.

Even though I've gone from loving him to becoming indifferent over the years, I still think The Life Aquatic is a fuggin masterstroke. The rest are whatever.

Nobody ever tried to live up to Signs. Signs fucking sucks.

Read the posts

I don't care about his aesthetic I care about how he took the humour from Signs and turned it into a formulaic wash of dull plots and melodrama.
And he just gets a free pass from everyone even though he has remade the same film (even made an animated version of it (and btw that fucking film shares none of the fun traits of the original book FUCK)) and Signs just gets fucked over by everyone because "lol its the shamalan"

I wouldn't care so much if his movies didn't have critics and audiences alike applauding them for their "creativity" and "originality" which keep eroding how clever and tight the humour in Signs is.

Signs copied Royal Tenenbaums.

The Grand Budapest Hotel had a 25 million dollar budget. The Royal Tenenbaums was 28 million. Fantastic Mr. Fox was 40 million. TGBH made almost 200 million dollars. TRT made almost 70 million. FMF did only make 46 million.

He's not exactly making little indie flicks like a lot of his fans want to believe.

i was only replying to the user who asked to explain why he was an auteur and I said because he utilizes a similar visionary style in all his movies. I really wasn't replying to the OP at all

It's disingenuous to say that just because someone doesn't like Wes Anderson that they want more of Zack Snyder.

Edgar Wright makes unique and colorful movies but isn't nearly as gimmicky as Anderson.

>Signs is a comedy

Okay, I'll bite. How did you arrive at this premise?

It's a drama/horror movie, user. There are maybe a couple chuckles to be had but I don't think there's a current of "humor" running through the picture.

pretty sure him "reusing" the humor lends to his auteur style. it's just that he writes as well as directs. you could be angry about it I guess, or think it's lame to keep doing the "same thing" but there's plenty of people still eating it up. so if he likes to do it, he's winning or getting nominated for awards, and making heaps of money, why WOULDNT he recycle here and there? don't be a jelly belly because he's good at what he does. and that's make enjoyable movies. the fact that he's able
to rehash and still be appreciated on that level I think makes it even more respectable.

>i dislike the films of Wes Anderson because I am a contrarian

To add to this, I wonder what that user would say to Ozu or Hitchcock.

>why does this Jap keep shooting things from a low-angle? And what's with all the establishing shots? Every movie is the same
>ugh, when is Hitchcock going to do something other than horror/thriller? It's getting old already

Wes Anderson is good at what he does. If you don't like it, don't watch him.

I watched that movie once in school I believe and I didn't find it all that amusing, felt more like a Stiller film than something like Life Aquatic.

Even if Signs copied RT, it did it better.
I'm pretty sure its the other way around though, since Life Aquatic is where Anderson's "signature style" really comes into play.

>There are maybe a couple chuckles to be had but I don't think there's a current of "humor" running through the picture.
Aww dude you need to fucking rewatch it, there are tonnes of funny moments in the way in which the characters react to the news going around them.
Phoenix's best role imo and Gibson plays a great straight man to Phoenix, the town and the kids
It might not be a capital C comedy but the actors all knew what they were doing and those moments are propelled by the drama/horror in the movie which are sandwiched very nicely between the comedic moments to break up the comedy (a trick that fucking SOMEBODY never learnt). The drama and horror have sadly aged in some aspects but are still very potent in some scenes.

>don't be a jelly belly because he's good at what he does.
You're all misunderstanding me, I don't dislike his movies because I'm jealous, dislike his movies or want to be special.
I dislike them because they are taking something great (Signs) and just fucking eroding how great that movie is. I wouldn't be so annoyed with Anderson if he had like two movies that were based on the stilted awkward humour Signs' uses but he's made an entire career out of it.
And as it stands just because its "lol le shaman", Signs gets the boot while everyone eats up Anderson's fucking shit.
Honestly I believe in the long run people will come back to Signs and appreciate it for what it is more than Anderson's movies but in the present it does bug me how his movies get such praise over the movie that did it first and much better imo.

and I'm sure there were plenty of ozu and Hitchcock haters then like Anderson haters now. it's all gravy in the end, Anderson will be in textbooks. he is in some already actually

I think you just really like signs for some reason.

Yeah, I'd definitely say its in my top ten.

It's a pretty beautiful movie as well, now I've never been someone that appreciates facial aesthetics and how they're shot in a film but there are some great shots of Gibson in it. As well as the scenes of the field and I even like the little twist at the end.

Another reason for the critical response only getting worse towards Signs as time goes on could be Gibson himself but the guy is a great actor and his work and the films he was in shouldn't be reprimanded for his wrong doings.

What does Wes Anderson have to do with Signs?

Breakdon
>Copied the humour from it
>Didn't think about how the real threat and drama/horror in the film made the humour so much better
>Signs doesn't get any recognition even though it coined the style of humour Anderson is famous for
>a e s t h e t i c
>fuck that hack

Signs is scary AND funny. Better than most comedies and horror movies.

Had the luck to watch it premiere night with my then girlfriend and it was one of the best experiences I had in a theatre. The people lived the movie and were either laughing or scared. Just remembering that night brings back a grin.

I still rewatch it every now and then and still laugh at the jokes, it's that good. Mel and Joaquin are hilarious.

The scenes where Phoenix and Gibson are in the town talking with the locals about the Signs are some of my favourite scenes in any movie.
They're short but so fucking sweet.

I'm glad to see someone else appreciates that movie.

Are you high? You say anderson 'stole' that style of humor and it made him famous. Signs was made in 2002. By that time anderson already had 3 films, including his most successful until GBH, that all encompass his blunt, dry comedy style.
This guy called it.

Have you seen Fantastic Mr. Fox?

His signature style came from how well Life Aquatic did, which came after Signs.

I just love the scene where they're chasing the alien outside the house and Mel tries to swear. I laugh every single time. Mel is such a great actor.

You know why the movie is so underrated? Because retards (the majority of the population think like this: damn, it's a pretty good movie but LOL SHYAMALAN! WHAT A TWIST!KEK.

>Because retards (the majority of the population think like this: damn, it's a pretty good movie but LOL SHYAMALAN! WHAT A TWIST!KEK.
Exactly, I feel like a lot of that rests on the shoulders of people like the nostalgia critic and other youtubers. I can't say I blame them for making fun of some of his movies but Signs is fucking fantastic and maybe Sham's body of work has sort of eroded how good that movie was but he had a really good run from his first movies up until about The Lady in the Water.

It could just be that Phoenix and Mel are just great actors though and it does kind of feel like they carry the movie quite a bit.

Another thing that I actually tear up on is the scene where the aliens are breaking into the house and Mel tells the story to his son about the day he was born. God he's so fucking convincing in that scene, I actually don't cry to movies but that one scene gets me every fucking time.

>Me and my boyfriend watched a movie yesterday and I caught him crying
>aw which one?
>signs

now that's a twist

> I feel like a lot of that rests on the shoulders of people like the nostalgia critic and other youtubers
Apes imitate other apes. I agree.

And yes, Shyamalan has made some seriously terrible movies, but his first 3(4) hits were great and for those films alone deserves way more respect.
But ever since The Sixth Sense every goddamn retard on Earth tried to guess the twist from the beginning of the movie to feel smarter and brag about it instead of just enjoying the ride.
I even read some mouthbreathers try to guess the twist just from the fucking teaser or even poster.
Back then (before the release of The Village) I knew his career was in serious jeopardy. One stinker and it would be over...and the dude had a few since then.

It's an okay movie. Probably even good, but not close to great. Mel and Phoenix give good performances. There are some scary visuals and the whole faith regained story arc works well.

There are also a lot of shit ShammyLammy-isms when it comes to the writing. His wife is vivisected by the car and yet she's still able to talk to him? Aliens arrive on Earth and yet the only fallout we see is to this small farmhouse? And that's not even getting into the whole, aliens allergic to water entering a planet in which there is water in the atmosphere.

It has cute moments and, now that I think about it, there are also cutesy moments of humor. But that tripfag is really overrating that movie.

you never heard the theory that they were actually demons this the whole Christian overtone. the glasses of water were "holy water"

>He thinks they're aliens
>He thinks the entire movie 80 minutes of this movie is about how spooky aliens are and not all of the inner growth of the characters on screen

Signs is by far the best Shyamalan movie, and the only one that actually dives deeper than the surface. Retards like to go "oh they're allergic to water what a shit ending" and those people are completely retarded and missed the entire god damn point. Fuck I'm mad, like I always am when retards talk shit about Signs

You have to admit, it's a pretty big plot hole.

There is water everywhere, user. They should have dissolved.

I have heard that theory, which is a fan theory and not something Shyamalan concocted. I do think it's a better interpretation of the movie. But then it doesn't explain the crop circles. It's pretty clear that the story was meant to be about aliens.

Again, I'm not saying it's a terrible movie. I might even agree that it's M. Night's best. I'm just saying it's hardly a masterpiece.

If anything, Sup Forums overrates the movie because it stars le persecuted Jew hater.

I actually would not watch the movie in front of a girl I just started dating due to the fear of crying in front of her
>One stinker and it would be over...and the dude had a few since then.
The guy has at least a few good movies left in him he just has to stop relying on the gimmicks that he thinks makes his movies sell.

I can admit to some of its faults but I actually like the faith restored story arc and I love how everything comes together in the end, not so much a twist but a conjunction of set character traits.

I'd still say its a great movie though.

Also

Not trying to be a dick but since I've heard some of you complaints for over a decade I'll answer.

>His wife is vivisected by the car and yet she's still able to talk to him?
How is that worse than having aliens in your movies. Also, it's not like that part isn't irrelevant to the themes of the movie.

>Aliens arrive on Earth and yet the only fallout we see is to this small farmhouse?
That was pretty much the selling point of the movie. It was the opposite of Independence Day and similar spectacles. This one dealt with alien invasion in an intimate/personal way.

>aliens allergic to water entering a planet in which there is water in the atmosphere.
Never understood that point. Ignoring other interpretations of aliens and the water, why do why always assume the aliens are geniuses? What if they don't even know what water is because they don't have it on their planet? What if the smart aliens back on their planet warned them it would be a stupid idea to invade Earth and they were like "Whatever. LOL" and invaded anyway. As if humans knowing that something is dangerous or bad for your health don't do it anyway...

The movie works fine as it is.

>I actually would not watch the movie in front of a girl I just started dating due to the fear of crying in front of her
Only real men cry.

First off, you're assuming it's H2O that they're allergic to, and not all of the other natural chemicals that are in water.

Not only that, you assume that they're aliens and not demons, where there's fair enough evidence in the film itself that they might be demons, and it's special blessed water that burns them.

Whenever I see someone say that stupid shit, I imagine them going to science websites or Reddit and talking about how awesome science is or how smart they are or other conceded retard shit. You're not smart, you're just as retarded as everyone else.

>the guy has at least a few good movies left in him he just has to stop relying on the gimmicks that he thinks makes his movies sell.

I really hope so, I loved those movies so much. And I just want him to make another good movie. The best from his list of awful ones was the Happening, it was unintentonally funny but there were still some good imagery.

I appreciate this content

>How is that worse than having aliens in your movies
Aliens are pretty cool