ITT: Shit directors or movies who somehow are almost always praised

ITT: Shit directors or movies who somehow are almost always praised

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4flWs9Z462U
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Kubrick

>somehow

Did you ever consider that you're the wrong one? I'm guessing you're from Sup Forums, which puts you below that line where you're so stupid that you have no idea how stupid you are.

>somehow

are you retarded?

Tarantino
Peter Jackson
Aronofsky
Rian Johnson
Spielberg
Wright

Pretty much all the imdb upvote favorites

Hrs the kind of person that gets upset when someone else enjoys something he doesn't. He then feels the need to put them down so he can feel bette about himself. It really comes down to a self esteem issue, I really pity people like that.

Butt-blasted fa/tv/irgin in full damage control because someone insulted mah Nolan.

Nolan is trash. I'm guessing you like him because he appeals to pseudo-intellectual redditors like yourself

>being contrarian without providing any valid points of criticism

>coming from tumblr
>liking Nolan
Checks out.

>damage control

No, I'm just really wondering if "people" like you ever consider the possibility that there's something wrong with you as opposed to everyone else. Considering your cringeworthy love for buzzwords based on this post and the one you deleted, it's not like you're some mega-genius on a higher plane of existence than Nolan's movies. Do you think it makes you cool and badass to dislike critically acclaimed directors?

youtube lowtiergod and get back to us nignogs

And I'm sure your favorite directors are Bay, Snyder, and McG, right. Or are those not contrarian enough and you have to pretend Dunston Checks In and The Pest are brilliant movies.

>Something being critically acclaimed means it's automatically good
How about thinking for yourself instead of trying to have "correct" opinions?

...

What does that make Synder then? Nolan isn't great. But there are a lot of worse directors.

But I didn't say that, you're an obvious Sup Forums poster now. It's fucking lunacy the way you inbred fat fucking retards are so easy to spot by the brain damaged logic and strawmanning.

>CIAkino I've never seen
OwO what's this?

No
They'd be listed too, but OP said
>somehow are almost always praised

I'm not from your precious boogeyman board you fucking redditor

here's a point

his movies always include some masturbatory "meta" bullshit for no reason other than to give off the semblance of a deeper meaning to his flicks

he has no visual style of his own, his films are almost always bland and look horribly boring and conventional

he is a shit writer, his dialogue is cringeworthy, his "deep messages" fall flat every single time, and his stories are littered with plot holes. He is awful at writing and directing even the most basic of dialogue, and as a result everything characters say feels clunky and artificial.

he's the opposite of an auteur, he is not a creative, he is a technician whose job it is to give the illusion of art to the commercial.

and to top it all off, he's absolutely trash at directing actors, and the more actors on set the lazier and lazier he becomes. any large scale fight scene from the dark night rises, for example, is so lazily choreographed that once closely examined for more than a second, all believability falls apart. Even in some smaller combat sequences, his actors are falling all over the place unconstrained by the laws of physics. And instead of shooting scenes like this over like a competent director would, he lazily elects to keep the ruined take instead of just shooting it again.

His "films" are an insult to the intelligence of anyone who watches them. Point final.

The problem is that there's a huge disparity in the quality of Nolan's films and the praise he gets. I don't see many critics waxing poetic about Zack Snyder

>Hillary supporters are still this butthurt

>calling it a boogeyman even though even thread on the board is polluted with alt right whiny victim complex identity politics

hi Sup Forums poster, you are nowhere near smart enough to lie convincingly even over the internet. try leaving the buzzwords at the door for a sentence or two; that would be a good start toward disguising what you clearly are.

>Dialogue is shitty and amateurish, watch the opening of TDKR if you want an example
>Story tries to be complex and interesting and appeal to "smart" audiences but rather than showing it tells you through exposition
>Characters are the most one-dimensional flat pieces of shit ever, I've heard theories that the characters are so boring and unforgettable in Inception deliberately because they're part of Cobb's dream but that doesn't change the fact that they're trash

>Nolan makes a movie about dreams
>everything is boring, grey and flat and not dreamlike at all
what did he mean by this?

Blitz (2011)

So he was portraying actual dreams that actual people have instead of some sped's need for cartoony, vibrant dreams?

>defending Nolan

>>>/reddit/

Jackson
Refn
Nolan
Villenueve
Korine
Tarantino
McQueen
Affleck
Innaritu
Del Toro
Coen Brothers
Cameron
Zemeckis
Bigelow

Yeah I found it by reverse-searching, DLing it now.

If those were actual dreams the people having them must have been the most dull individuals on Earth

>Complains about no valid points of criticism
>Never address criticism when it then is provided

Dreams typically have relatively subtle distortions of reality. You're probably retarded so I'll save you the effort: lying and claiming normal dreams are like magic mushroom trips won't work, since dreams are very commonly discussed everywhere throughout human history.

Innaritu truly is a hack.

>long-winded unfalsifiable bullshit
>criticisms

It's hilarious that you morons think using lots of words to repeat the same MUH BAD WRITING nonsense is fooling anyone. There isn't a single thing in either post that can be argued against other than the thing about plot holes, which is just objectively wrong.

>lying and claiming normal dreams are like magic mushroom trips won't work
I never claimed they were, faggot

The thing about dreams is that they are very unrealistic and bizarre, but in our unconscious state we simply don't realize this and accept them at face value. When we wake up and actually think about them one wonders "how did I not know it was a dream? That would never happen!"

The idea that a dream is just like real life except for a few "distortions" is patently false even if you're someone with no imagination whatsoever.

>unfalsifiable
How is a claim that a movie contains gratuitous amounts of exposition unfalsifiable?

Watch this scene and tell me this shit isn't ridiculous.

youtube.com/watch?v=4flWs9Z462U

Nolan films aren't intellectual masterpieces that his fanboys scream, but they aren't dogshit either. His films are the definition of mediocrity, he's not a director worth mentioning, there are mutilple directors better than him. Nolan films have high concept ideas, but he never explores them, he broadly explains his plot and themes in the form of lazy exposition through his characters to his audience. Nolan pretty much dumbs down the ideas of Bergman, tarkovsky, and Kubrick to make his films accessible to the general audience. His characters are always the most forgettable part of his films(outside of joker, of course) why? Because his characters don't feel humans, they're basically info dumps for the sole purpose of explaining the plot to the audience. If Nolan got someone else to write his dialogue, his films would probably increase in quality. The way his films are tightly edited also gives zero breathing moments which gives us quiet character moments, his films have none of that.

Indeed

Dubs fucking confirm

ever come across that this could be bait?

>Hur dur

...

Garms?

Will you rim it out after then??

Pleb poseurs spotted, go actually watch the films before you "critique" those directors.