Is Denis Villeneuve a good director? Be thoughtful with your posts and give reasons. No sperging or shilling allowed

Is Denis Villeneuve a good director? Be thoughtful with your posts and give reasons. No sperging or shilling allowed.

No.

he is competent

Yes. Great? No. But he's trustworthy.

He is another hack in the realist opulence vessel that infected hollywood after Batman Begins, a huge effort of technicians unable to deal horizontally with the material, more concerned with achieving ethereal perfection in their own craft

he's a reddit hack

this couldnt be more succinct
we now have three choices in film, all under the reddit umbrella
>CAPESHIT
ie the avengers, spiderman, superman, batman
>PSEUDO CAPESHIT AKA "ADULT" FILMS
christopher nolan/denis villeneuve/spielberg/alex garland
>"INDIE"
refn/PTA/damien chazelle/inarritu

No he's very emotionless. Doesn't move the camera

He quickly churns out half-baked films that are usually just "pretty good" but never anything too noteworthy. Could be a good director if he had the self-control to stick to one thing and polish it.

He is a decent director but not good. All his movies are incredibly sterile and rarely can touch any feelings. The cast is always good, visuals are good, music is fine(except BR2049, fucking fraud zimmer), but everything is extremely sterile. The shots feel tryhard for the sake of tryhardness rather then any logic or art.

He's a competent corporate Yes man good at churning out accessible yet "deep" flicks.

Yes. He's one of the better directors working today. Most people here only learned of him with Sicario, but if you'd been following him before that, you'd understand he has a very strong understanding of filmcraft.

He sold out (or cashed in) with 2049

Take this post for example , user has clearly never seen Enemy.

Honestly, good post, but wasted here in this thread.
You almost reach a relevant conclusion, but you fall short.

enemy is capeshit

>enemy is capeshit
Yikes.
>nocaps
Double yikes

I have no idea what this means but it sounds good

He can't direct a performance. Amy adams was terrible in Arrival.

what are some of the best directors working right now according to you? im genuinely curious

do you even watch movies?

Not capeshit, Star Wars or Idris Elba

REPORTED

He sold out with Arrival, everything before that had a clear artistic vision until Arrival.

No. I watch film.

Ofcourse he's a great director. He turns bad/mediocre scripts into actual great films just with his execution and direction.
Sicario could've been just another B tier mexican drug trade film everyone forgets about, but because of Villeneuve's execution it's one of the most prominant slow burning thrillers of recent times. Prisoners also.
Or take the threeway sex scene in BR2049. That could've easily been a completely ridiculous cheesy scene, but because of his execution it's genuinely emotionally involving and one of the better scenes in the entire film.

This man has been making atleast one film per year since 2009 and every single one of them was a highly acclaimed critical success, not one below average film.
How the fuck doesn't he jjust burn out is beyond me.

I dunno that I agree with this. Arrival was a pet project of his.

>How the fuck doesn't he just burn out is beyond me.
Enemy was a very loose autobiography in addition to being an alien invasion movie.

Does he use the same cinemaographer in all his movies?

No.

I thought he was black, what the fuck. I’m not kidding, I remember seeing a behind the scenes for Arrival and he was a black dude. I think I just switched parallel dimensions

He's above Fincher and Nolan but still cut from the same fabric.

>I remember seeing a behind the scenes for Arrival and he was a black dude
That was Bradford Young, the cinematographer of Arrival.

Oh never mind that was Bradford Young. Fuck man my world has changed.

>tfw Villen9 will never work with Dion Beebe

I admit i am a pleb when it comes to nu cinema
But i really cant differentiate his style and cuarons, fukunaga, nolan, or even malick

Im not saying they dont handle the material well, they just all seem to be wanking to cinematography and other film school tricks of the trade.

>Nolan
>cinematography wank
Maybe in The Prestige. That's it

Cuaron and malick are distinct af

malick is unironically a hack. cuaron, fukunaga et nolan sont de bons réalisateurs.

>but ultimately your post falls flat...
Look at you, what an excellent review.

>Look at you, what an excellent review.
Thanks!!!

>Gyllenhall
>capeshit
wat

>but because of Villeneuve's execution it's one of the most prominant slow burning thrillers of recent times.
To be fair Deakins DP'd the shit out of Sicario. I mean the sunset shot of the operators descending into the earth is probably one of my favorite shots in the last 5 years.

I don't agree with this but I see where it's coming from and it's a well expressed opinion.

This, however, is fucking stupid, whoever uses the word "reddit" as an adjective or, really, to describe anything other than the site by that name, doesn't have an opinion worth listenting to.

No he really isn't. You just have to look at Blade Runner 2049 to see how mediocre of a director he is.

>t. redditor

Blade Runner was amazing you contrarian pig fuck

>Damien Chazelle
He did 1 "indie" film on his own accord, the other was a stepping stone to his passion project, which was a big budget original movie-musical. Hardly Reddit material. Reddit HATED La La Land, didn't like Whiplash until everyone else did, and still hasn't watched Guy and Madeline. You may not like Chazelle, but he's not a "reddit" director

Yes BR2049 is so mediocre, we see almost 3 hour long R rated visually focused slow burning neo-noir sci fi films with zero quips that deals with the human condition every other day

OP said no sperging or shilling

That's every director in the history of filmmaking
triggered, plebbit?

He's an exceptional filmmaker.

I suspect many of the bigger flaws in 2049 were due to factors much beyond his control. Ridley is a known control freak.
It had some very good parts, great actually, but the whole movie was too long, too meandering. Also, a lot of it was just too dark. The opening scene was belabored as well.
I liked it, but there was enough that I disliked. Also, if DVN had full control, it would've likely been much better based on his c.v.
>zero quips
Not quite zero.

>t. reddit

Villeneuve had full 100% directorial creative control. There will no other cuts (from Villeneuve atleast), this is exactly what he wanted.
Aside from the 2 or 3 unnecessary flashbacks, I don't see any flaws in it at all.

stop posting this

truth hurts I know

Tsai Ming-Lian, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Coen Brothers, Bernardo Bertolucci, Wong Kar-Wai, Lav Diaz, Terrence Malick, Olivier Assayas, Albert Serra, Wang Bing, Joe Weerskathul, Claire Denis, Ridley Scott, Yorgos Lanthimos, David Lowery, Steven Soderbergh and Hong Sang-soo

no one who directs one movie per year can be good.

I'm going to say he's a great director on the grounds that I've enjoyed most of his stuff.
That's good enough for me without be a pretentious fat neck bearded wannabe film critic who gangs out in the pirate bay comments section

>Ridley Scott
>Terrence Malik

To accept Villeneuve as a quality director is to garb yourself in a coat of hot pockets and video games and then writh around on the ground in a supermarket while screaching and slapping yourself on the sides of your head.

He is cheeto dust. Nothing more.

Nothing more than a hack, a useful tool for studios to trot out to say "Hey, we're making art house!" I cannot wrap my head around the adulation he receives, let alone the wide praise this has got. The film trudges from set piece to set piece, leaves us no real questions or anything to think about really.

The worst part however was Deakins "look at me i'm acting!" cinematography. This poor sap has become a parody of himself to appease his internet fans(much like Refn after Drive)

The same bullet that kills a capeshit fan will also kill the Villeneuve and Paul Thomas Anderson fan. They come from the same root, from the same doritos stained console. They are frauds, and as a warrior of cinema it's my duty to expose the fakes and the inauthentic when I see them. I will fight with crawls and teeth until the last imposter is fallen to the ground

I have about as much respect for denis villeneuve as I do for the dogshit on my shoe. It is reddit. It is video game hotpocket. It is capeshit. It is cheeto dust. I'm literally screaming right now and slamming my arms down on my desk just thinking about it.

It is the most depraved video game infantilized manchild degeneracy. It is saturday morning cartoon. It is non-neurotypicality. It is memes. It is video game. It is tarantino. It is imdb.

>no sperging

>that fucking mong face

>Villeneuve had full 100% directorial creative control.
I'd believe this if Ridley wasn't involved and he actually was in on the ground level for the screenwriting process. Like I said, other than a few scenes that were just too dark, there were some great pieces (the visuals were the best part of the movie), and I'll give pretty much all of that credit to DVN and Deakins.
Villeneuve was definitely the right guy, but this sure as hell ain't the best an unshackled version of 2049 could've been.

Flashbacks were a tad grating, but those actually weren't on my mind.
Deckard and K's fight was extremely jarring. None of what they accomplished with fists couldn't have been done better with an incredibly tense staredown with a gun out on a table while sharing their Scotch.
My biggest problem I suppose was the pointed lack of subtlety which I've gotten used to over his filmography.
Take that opening scene, for instance (which was supposed to be a callback to the original draft of the original movie). The fight between Goose and Drax accomplished fucking nothing. They should've exchanged a few words about miracles or whatever, and then K shoulda shot him cold. And before you say we learn he is a Replicant, we'll find that out during his re-calibration in just a few minutes anyway.

The love scene was tops. Also that one flyover of the city and it looks like present day LA's hills without lights, until you realize it's the top of this super tall city block. Also pretty much the entire LVNV aesthetic was great. Oh and just about every scene in the Tyrell building was spot on. The casting on the whole was very good as well.


Also, a few other thematic things that could've been addressed better/or at all:
Why the hell is cybersecurity so unobtrusive in the future?
Why did K's function in the story result in serving as basically a plant to find 'the child' and why did nobody address this oh so convenient coincidence?

>Ridley
Dude what the fuck? How can you call Denis a hack, when Ridley is basically the Saint of Hackdom, but on your list?
Decent list btw
If you don't appreciate the works of Terrence Malick, you should leave this board.

>If you have a different opinion, you should leave this board

essential fedora-core

+James Cameron

If you have an uninformed, sophomoric opinion, you should, in fact, leave this board.

One of the biggest issues with this board, in particular, is that we have too many people who are in the board's lower rung of thinkers (this is not to say anything of capacity, but of effort and application) attempting to intermingle with the more critical and knowledgeable thinkers.

If you think, incorrectly, that Malick isn't worth your appreciation (you don't have to like everything he puts out, mind you), then you are consigning yourself to that lower rung, and even bigger than the attempted interactions between the board's tiers, is the fact that we have such a low floor to begin with. Hence the necessity that you need to get the fuck off of Sup Forums.

t. Terrence Malick

Sorry, your movies aren't that good.

I find Arrival to be his best movie and really think only reason this board shits on it is because it's been popular. That movie had masterful editing that could be taught in film schools. It was both the peak craftsmanship that would please every other formalist and very human approach in an intuitive way to resonate with more cognitive approaches to filmmmaking.

I think it's my runner-up after Enemy.

He showed promise as a young filmmaker, but so far he has released only one movie worth of note: Enemy.

Everything else he has made so far is genre films with poor scripts and an audiovisual edge. That and mimicry of better filmmakers. He is more of a technician than an artist, imo. One thing that could really work for him is a creative partnership with a writer who could tame his tendencies for churning out slick, sterile, safe films.

its true

He's part of the same tradition as guys like Chris Nolan and Ridley Scott....

An absolute master of his craft, but without much to say.


The problem with Hollywood today isn't a lack of talented directors/photographers/editors etc...


they've got lots of people like Dennis who can storyboard and shoot a beautiful looking movie.


The problem is that there is a shortage of good scripts, the the power dynamic of todays business mean that screenwriters play second fiddle to directors.

>screenwriters play second fiddle to directors.
As it should be.

Paraphrasing here, but some Brit once said "Film is too important for fucking plotfags".
He was right.

He's making quality movies. Fuck contrarians and autists.

Backlash against Villeneuve is yet another bit of evidence that some people are literally incapable of enjoying or even recognising skill in art that isn't specifically catered to their exact desires

Literally the next Stanley Kubrick.

his fans(at least on here) are literally children

Stanley Kubrick is the next Kubrick.

bump