Will someone explain why the popular opinion that Villeneuve is a hack? What exactly do you hate about his films...

Will someone explain why the popular opinion that Villeneuve is a hack? What exactly do you hate about his films? Spare the copypasta

>Popular opinion
The popular opinion is that he's one of the best directors working today, and Blade Runner 2049 cemented that.

Probably some anglo cucks, upset that Quebec once again carry them.

>the popular opinion

The popular opinion on Sup Forums is anyone that's popular is a hack.

>something something insincere, something something derivative
Honestly this guy to me is like a new Nolan, he does solid films with interesting concepts that ultimately fail to connect emotionally, the difference being that so far at least he isn't afraid to make this films R-rated and gritty, and I commend him further for it.

Licherally this. Villy makes good films, kino, if you will

He’s the Hans Zimmer of directors. Think about it, it’s true.

i've heard a big number of foreign critics (i'm not from the US) saying that they hate him and think he is overrated, talking about how egotistical and pedantic he comes out as... no idea why really

i even read critics saying things like "yeah... it's sure pretty... you can really see the 200 million they spent but i dunno... i dislike villeneuve's movies, he's a hack" 0 reasons given, just like that

that's how silly it goes and i'm talking about grown ass 40-50yo critics working in the industry, thought only 20yo shitposters talked like that

Based Rocco

you have no soul if you cant connect to nolan and villeneuve films, they're quite possibly the only mainsteam directors working today that can evoke emotions out of their audience

I find his movies boring and they lack any sort of substance or value. Basically he makes sterile uninteresting movies.

i feel nothing during any movie, i've just swallowed the propaganda leveled against nolan and assume that other directors are better about it

Pretty sure the popular opinion is that Spanish Christopher Nolan makes good movies

I'd sooner call him a new Scott. Diverse body of work, puts artfulness ahead of typical blockbuster tendencies (to which even Nolan succumbs), great at creating moods and atmospheres.

Maybe better than Scott in that he shows much more restraint.

Contrarianism. He's not a hack, he's very good. But this type of contrarianism is understandable when you see a director reaching Nolan-esque levels of meme popularity with the redditor "cinephile" crowd.

If, as a filmmaker, you can consistently produce good movies then obviously you're a good filmmaker. However, if you churn out mediocre films, and the occasional odd good movie, then it stands to reason that you're not a good filmmaker but just happened to get lucky that one time. And no, Blade Runner 2049, was not him "getting lucky", because that movie was pretty mediocre. Arrival is so far his only truly great film. The rest of his works range from exceptionally shit (Prisoners) to Moderately Good (Sicario).

You're a faggot dude Prisoners is easily his best English language movie

Pleb opinion to think a straight forward, by-the-book, coddle the audience director like Nolan is similar to Vill. There's at least a semblence of art direction with Vill

>(Enemy) not at least Moderately Good

go back to your containment site cuckolds

He's an improved Scott since he isn't totally oblivious to plot.

>explain why the popular opinion that Villeneuve is a hack?
Erm... based on what, according to who?
He has only made a handful of movies and all of them have been good so far. On of them of course is kino. So no he is not a hack. But thanks for playing.

Literally all of his movies range from good to great except Blade Runner, which was a masterpiece

>Arrival
>truly great
nice bait m8

He is cheeto dust.

he is coca cola puberty
he is imdb.

his movies are slow with uninteresting characters.

he nearly ruined Blade Runner 2049 with the inclusion of Jared Leto. It should have been directed by Nolan or Michael Mann.

Be part of history.

>Nolan
Ahahahahahahahah

>prisoner
>sicario
>Blade runner 2049

i wish all hacks were that talented

Nolan made one of the best crime films of the last decade with The Dark Knight. With Roger Deakins on cinematography and the art design of Syd Mead - the film would be doing a lot better than it is now and certainly better than what Dunkirk did.

These directors always go to shit when they start chasing respect.

Blade Runner 2049 is part of a recent series of movies I'd describe as Dunning-Kruger Sci-Fi. Along with Interstellar and to a somewhat lesser extent Arrival, they perfectly play to the crowd that fancies themselves as (and, to be fair, may truly be) smarter than average audiences but are not as smart as genuinely "smart people." They are movies designed to make the audience feel smart by introducing complicated and heady concepts, and then holding the viewer's hand the entire way through until there is next to nothing to be left up to interpretation.

If you didn't already know the twist in Blade Runner by the time he was visiting Leto's factory AT LEAST, you perfectly fit the audience I am talking about.

There is no reward for being smart while viewing these movies because everything is eventually spelled out in big fridge magnet letters. Any clever idea is made so transparent that even the most simple in the audience will get it. It also removes any reward for rewatching or trying to figure out what you just saw.

Granted, there is a difference between BR2049 and Interstellar. I think where Interstellar was pretending to have a brain it actually didn't have, 2049 has a brain that it is refusing to let the audience use.

Completely disappointing movie.

Also
>this isn't a quote from Arrival

What's wrong with Arrival?

Arrival is part of a recent series of movies I'd describe as Dunning-Kruger Sci-Fi. Along with Interstellar and to a somewhat lesser extent The Martian, they perfectly play to the crowd that fancies themselves as (and, to be fair, may truly be) smarter than average audiences but are not as smart as genuinely "smart people." They are movies designed to make the audience feel smart by introducing complicated and heady concepts, and then holding the viewer's hand the entire way through until there is next to nothing to be left up to interpretation.

If you didn't already know the twist in Arrival by the time she was in the milky section of the ship with the aliens AT LEAST, you perfectly fit the audience I am talking about.

There is no reward for being smart while viewing these movies because everything is eventually spelled out in big fridge magnet letters. Any clever idea is made so transparent that even the most simple in the audience will get it. It also removes any reward for rewatching or trying to figure out what you just saw.

Granted, there is a difference between Arrival and Interstellar. I think where Interstellar was pretending to have a brain it actually didn't have, Arrival has a brain that it is refusing to let the audience use.

Completely disappointing movie.

Also
>so that just happened

oh, thanks

a fundamentally uninteresting story superficially wrapped up in sci fi elements
also
>mumblecore performances
>terrible maudlin score
>photography is literally too dark

>they're quite possibly the only mainsteam directors working today that can evoke emotions out of their audience
Scorsese and the Coens are both working steadily, user.

It was only too dark if you saw it in a bad theatre.

this guy makes kino after kino and you faggots somehow find some inane reason to criticize him. Face it, Denis is a masterclass film maker

One day, I’m going to try to write a post fo btfo all Vill-numales.

>Spanish

He's a Frog-Canuck.