Is Villaleneuve elite?

Is Villaleneuve elite?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yhHwgDAM8uU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He's the new Kubrick.

>2 shit flicks and a mediocre rehash
He is cheeto dust, counterfeit art for the easily impressed.

Dishonest filmmaking.

>Incendies
>prisoners
>enemy

Yeah he’s pretty goat

nice memes!

arrival was trash

>Arrival
No.

explain why

You forgot prisoners and enemy

Reminder that you must be 18+ to post on this site.

Sicario was mediocre at best, Arrival was slightly above average and I haven't seen 2049 yet

That's not a good comparison, Kubrick took a lot more time between projects

>tfw you realize Joe's eyes turn green as he dies.

Yes Villaleneuve is elite.

prisoners - shit flick
sicario - kino
arrival - shit flick
2049 - semi-kino

how can one director go so hot and cold

>tfw all his movies suck except for Blade Runner, which was still extremely overrated

I guess to people used to only Star Wars and capeshit he'd seem pretty good though.

Sicario is bullshit though. If you spend even a minute thinking about how they got to the endpoint, you realize the entire third act is pretty fucking contrived.

He manufactures films for the low-brow audience who favor cheap ideals of entertainment over artistic merit. His films have just enough stylized gimmickry (the putrid, flat digital, the piss-filters aka grading, the hot-topic cinematographers, etc) to pass off as something above-average to the average moviegoer, from which such people can pat themselves on the back for having sat through their idea of cinema. But his films amount to cheap consumption and are dishonest. You can hear it in his voice, when he talks about, for example, the original Blade Runner and how he first saw it in cinema and how it left such an impression on him all these years later. And of course he's so damn honored and privileged to get to work on the sequel, and to have Scott's blessing in doing so. But it's all inauthentic - he's just happy to have his big break and get to piggy back off the success of greater works. His only sincere actions are those in regards to his native province of Quebec, Canada - because he cannot forget the few honest moments he had back there as he was breaking into the industry, before he had succumbed to Hollywood.

What was wrong with Arrival exactly? I guess I liked the idea of the ending more than the movie itself, I mean the implications it had for the human race. Didn't care much about the personal story. Still I thought it was great.

hahha kill yourself fagtron haha

this picture is missing that train movie where everyone ran out scared

No. Even the top korean directors make better films

Yes, but you forgot his best films.

>Incendies
>Enemy

fixed

Hes just Nolan-lite

Polytechnique was also good.

yes

>prisoners - shit flick
opinion discarded

>prisoners - shit flick

Opinion discarded.

How does he do it?

Begins was the best of the 3

>prisoners - shit flick
watch it again

It's easily near the bottom of all Villeneuve flicks

I feel bad if you actually believe this.

I love inly liked sicario so far found the other two really drawn out and boring. 2049 was visually stunning tho.

That is some dedicated shitposting.

He's "almost".

He's made some Very Good films. Blade Runner 2049 was Great (for a rebootquel).

Soon he will make a truly Great Film and hopefully one that connets to a large audience.

Then he will transcend to the GOAT tier. It's within his grasp. Or...he might try, fail and end up directing a capeshit, some TV episodes, maybe a decent smaller film.

That image is a mess. For every accurate inclusion there is a shaky one. It mostly just seems like "Sup Forums General".

>6/10
>4/10
>7/10

could be worse

Sicario and Arrival were garbage, haven't seen Blade Runner yet.

Kubrick showed a lot more range. I love Villeneuve but his movies are all pretty samey.

If Prisoners is bottom tier Villeneuve, then he is doing pretty damn well.

>you realize the entire third act is pretty fucking contrived.
i've gotta agree but i don't think this is a flaw. emily's character was nevermore present as the vehicle for the audience and her curiosity to see what was happening on the border reflected the audiences' insatiable desire for a resolution. it works really well and remains consistent within the entire film. emily's character never knows what's happening just as with the audience.

Confirmed for never havin seen his French-language films.

Mmm projecting are we?

considering how dogshit your taste is you probably won't like it

SOMEONE POST THAT IMAGE

I don't know that many 16 year olds that watch Vilanova or a24 films

Arrival was shit

He's the master of Pseudokino

>the absolute philistines itt

Yes, he's very good but autism is unironically prevalent on this board so you'll get the typical contrarian bait posts.

You're the master of faggotry.

You know it's a good movie when the contrarian faggots start sperging out.

>2019 Dune

no lol. if you think he's a great director you need to watch (a lot) more films

sicario and arrival are both mediocre, blade runner is terrific but its mostly thanks to the story and script which villenueve had nothing to do with

more like the new ridley scott, ultrahack who rides off the coattails of other talent

>imagine being this insecure

all these shitposts washed away...like cheeto dust...on a keyboard

He makes perfectly adequate films without major flaws that undermine the experience and does it all without insulting the intelligence of the viewer.

In a better world that would be the definition of average, but the current state of Hollywood means he is one of the better directors currently working. I would not say 'elite' though.

Villeneuve is not elite; he is competent but has nothing interesting to offer. Has no style that you could pinpoint. I would trust him with a big-budget film but I would also trust Sam Mendes, David Fincher, or Christopher Nolan to make a big-budget film too, and they are pretty far from elite. They are competent and believers in the R-rated blockbuster, but they are not fucking elite.

>manufactures films for the low-brow audience who favor cheap ideals of entertainment over artistic merit

so you call Sunny D out on this shit, but not Abrams, Johnson, Waititi, Jenkins, Favrau and the like?

Also your post didn't actually explain how or why he is "dishonest" you stupid faggot, just kept saying it. This is some weapons-grade autism

>but not Abrams, Johnson, Waititi, Jenkins, Favrau and the like?
Who says he doesn't you moron? All of those directors are trash by the way, somehow worse than Denis.

>Who says he doesn't
>his post doesn't mention anyone but Villeneuve

WEEEEEW LAD

IT'S A ME, SICARIO

WiKi release???? LMAO

...

Arrival and Blade Runner are his worst films

Your ratings are hilarious.

1 movie/year is more a Fast Attack, to be honest.

youtube.com/watch?v=yhHwgDAM8uU

I don't know about any of that OP, but this scene was excellent.

In fact, 2049 bombed because did not attract younger people.
Try again.

>He is cheeto dust, counterfeit art for the easily impressed
>cheeto dust is counterfeit art for the easily impressed
>mfw impressed by cheeto dust

the thread is about Villeneuve you stupid faggot. It answers the question of if he is elite, and he isn't. He never will be. He is the next Nolan IF HE IS LUCKY

All 3 of OP's movies are better than any of those 4

The last kinographeaur.

sperging out about the 'dishonest' meme does not answer whether or not he is elite. it just answers the question of whether or not you're autistic and have a neck beard. not to mention the opinions of dishonesty posters are immediately discarded.

but the only reason you are sperging on him is because you know there is some truth to what he is saying

he's a fine director.
Why is it hard to care about any of the characters in his movies, though? It's cool to watch from a detached perspective, but which Villeneuve character have you identified with?

Is it K, because he has a waifu and feels things? ok, outside of that, what is interesting about any of his characters?

shiieet didn't realize veillenenevue did prisoners. only watched it because I love Jake Tylenol

its trash. everything except hugh jackman is mediocre. the final reveal is laughable. jake g's character is pointless, it explores no interesting themes and has no character arcs outside the aforementioned hugh jackman. nothing deeper is going on there

unlike sicario and br2049, and similarly to arrival

k is a great character with a great character arc
emily blunt was a good character too
benicio del toro and josh brolin less so, but still good
hugh jackman was pretty good
everyone else in prisoners and arrival were flat and pointless though i agree

>emily blunt was a good character too
You don't even remember her name lol great character there!

kate. it doesnt matter regardless what her name was that wasnt important. nice non argument there

Implying Sicario had good characters is fucking hilarious. The worst thing about Sicario, besides its script, was the characters.

what was wrong with them? they were what they were in service of the movie, and that was all they needed to be

you didn't answer any of my questions.
You just said that "X actor is good"

"they were there in service of the movie" implies the movie has big ideas that were bigger than its characters. It wasn't. 2001 is a movie I would say has big ideas, but everyone remembers Dave. Everyone remembers HAL. Nobody will remember the Sicario characters because the movie is literally just someone looking at the Mexican Drug War on Wikipedia and writing a movie about it (the writer literally said this). Sheridan is a hack.

Kubrick was obsessed with geometry but didn't understand humanity
Villeneuve is obsessed with moral compromise/breakdown and uses some metaphorical imagery but isn't as much of a technician as Kubrick was
Comparing the two is like comparing two entirely different techniques, morals and sensibilities.

2049, while still a pretty okay movie, especially compared with the other big budget releases of this year, was one of Villenueve's weaker movies.

the ideas in the movie arent groundbreaking, its about the tension of all the scenarios that you see through kates eyes, because you dont know whats going on, who the good vs bad guys are, and youre constantly looking over your shoulder. kate is good here because she's a surrogate for the audience to also feel out of place in the world where the us government basically does whatever the fuck it wants outside of the law to deal with the drug war. she finds it reprehensible and the viewer is meant to decide whether it is or not for themselves

im not saying this is groundbreaking or smart or that kate is a phenomenal character. im just saying her character is very important in conveying those feelings in the film. whether you think all that together is good or shit is another story

k is a good character in the br universe because he's a second way to interpret "what it means to be human" after the juxtaposition of an emotionless human deckard and full of life non human replicants batty and the rest of his troupe. his character arc pretty cleverly and convincingly illustrates to the audience that it isnt how youre born that decides if youre worth something ('special'), but the decisions you make. his realization of this makes him arguably more human than the actual 'special' child, deckard's daughter, who is caged her entire life

again, the theme isnt groundbreaking, but how it is conveyed in a totally foreign world works, and fits the themes already explored in the previous film

Sicario is GOAT tier but the other two are overrated as fuck.

Sicario>Blade Runner>Arrival
I really hope Dune is better because the source material is actually good, but really I want him to go back to the moral crisis movies

What were the wants and needs of the K character?
Why is the "special k" meme arc menaingful. Who in the audience gives a shit about how the characters are born? Why do i care if K thinks he has no soul? What difference does it make?

I don't think there's ANYTHING interesting about Blade Runner outside of the namesake, and Roger Deakins. Everything else is stupid.

arrival was shit and everyone that paid some attention to it knows

This. Enemy meh too

>Dune

Expect it to be re-written to a heavy focus on misdirection and twists over a rich story with real emitiinal depth.. His schtick is starting to become really obvious and annoying. Its a shame really because dude had potential.

He's basically what Nolan tries to be

just because you dont identify personally with a character doesnt automatically make them a bad character. in fact, just because nobody identifies personally with a character makes them a bad character, it just makes them harder to be written compellingly. I can't think of an example, but im sure there are some out there

but that's besides the point, because K's character is very easy to identify with, since its the classic journey to find purpose and identity in a world and a personal existence that seems pointless, meaningless, and without direction

K started off as just a stock replicant, but even then it's shown he wants to be loved. It's clear he doesnt at first believe JOI really loves him, but he still likes the affection because it's nice. Then he begins to think she really does love him at around the same time he thinks he might be special. At that point he craves being born unique because he thinks it will give him a purpose in life and make him a real person, free to live a life of his own choices rather than those of his superiors.

The audience cares about how characters are born because of the significance the movie obviously lends to being born. In the eyes of people who live in a world where human like replicants are mass produced and are almost identical to real humans, being born rather than made is what makes you a real human rather than the facsimile. Thus, to people in the world of Bladerunner, being born = being human/having a soul. It is then made important to the audience because the characters in the film think it is important.

You care if K has a soul at first because in the movie, this would make him hunted down since he is unique. Later, you care that he doesn't have a soul because that realization is crushing to him, the protagonist that you have been following the whole film.

If you can't see "what difference it makes" in a film where the difference is the whole point, you should rewatch it or accept you didnt get it

his misdirection in prisoners was retarded. the misdirection in arrival was a good idea but fell flat because of how boring the characters were and how silly the "learn a language, get non linear time perception" concept was. Which in turn, is really what the whole twist rested on.

It worked in bladerunner in my opinion because it was part of a journey of realization, in which revelation and shock can create good character moments.

I agree that I hope he doesn't try to do it again in Dune. Sicario didnt have a twist and it was one of his best films

>Sicario didnt have a twist

I love Sicario but if you think about it it kind of did though.

what was the twist? that the whole thing was a ploy by the US government to do something shady to try and fix the drug war? that was the whole point of the film, not really a twist, and certainly not on the level of arrival, which was more along the lines of interstellar