I can't describe why Villeneuve leaves me feeling so unsatisfied. Every film he's made just feels...

I can't describe why Villeneuve leaves me feeling so unsatisfied. Every film he's made just feels, for lack of a better word, 'hollow'. What is it about him that just sucks the joy, wonder, and excitement out of any script he's given? There's no earnestness, no yearning or ambition to anything he's done.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=83JfjgOe0QE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

t.Ron Howard

It's called the Sliding Scale of Cynicism vs Idealism. His films are firmly on the "Cynicism" side of the scale.

When will Disney come after him with false "rape" accusations because he said he was making Dune as "Star Wars for adults"

His films are sterile.
He directs like someone who's just graduated film school with top marks but who has never read any literature, never looked at any paintings, never delighted in poetry or music, and doesn't have any opinions on anything whatsoever. He is a competent, talented, polished shell of a human being.

I gather you don't care for Mann either?

Villeneuve 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.

God I’m hyped for Dune

What?

stick with CapeShit kiddo

Mann is overrated trash.

Is this pasta?

Tell me some of your favorite films that came out this past decade.

every time

he is the most dishonest film maker I have ever seen

This. Only movie between now and 2019 that I'm even looking forward to

It's the blatant dishonesty

Even more dishonest than Chazelle?! Impossible!

He doesn't have any wisdom. There's no real emotion to his movies, they don't strike at the core of humanity, they.. Nah I don't know tho

Elaborate if you would.

His films have breathtaking cinematography though.

"Dishonest" is one of the worst memes this board has come up with

A few random ones:
>The Ghost Writer (Roman Polanski, 2010)
>The Turin Horse (Bela Tarr, 2011)
>A Royal Affair (Nikolaj Arcel, 2012)
>Inside Llewyn Davis (Coen Brothers, 2013)
>Sils Maria (Olivier Assayas, 2014)
>Youth (Paolo Sorrentino, 2015)
>Paterson (Jim Jarmusch, 2016)
>The Killing of a Sacred Deer (Yorgos Lanthimos, 2017)
Now lets see yours.

Photography? Yes
Cinematography? No. In fact he actively avoids it

See

Not a meme, villenoob is legitimately dishonest

>he fell for the deakins meme cinematography

> his films amount to cheap consumption and are dishonest
LOL. you don't let up, do you? conflating an artist with his work again and citing the vague 'dishonesty' qualifier as a standard of criticism. how about instead of reiterating this presumptuous point for the umpteenth time, you actually read up on film theory, literary theory, and dramaturgy before posting again? it will do you a world of good and might even strengthen your argument when you have the proper education to make such claims. don't get me wrong. i'm rooting for you. you seem to have half a brain, which is far more than plenty of meme posters here, you just lack the fundamentals.

however, another thing i take umbrage with is really quite petty adn may even betray your lack of education. your attribution of derogatory inclination toward people you have never met is beneath you and your arguments. once you say something like, "he's just happy to have his big break and get to piggy back off the success of greater works," demeans and makes irrelevant everything you say before and after that statement.

babbys first contemporary art house

It is a meme

>Deakins is a terrible cinematographer because I fell for a meme on this cancerous board that tricked me into thinking that he's a bad cinematographer without any actual critical thinking or personal input. Also, I'm too stupid to explain why he sucks if confronted about my retarded, unoriginal opinion because I'm a retard who doesn't know the slightest thing about movies.

Holy shit you may be the most unrionic faggot on this website.

>There's no real emotion to his movies, they don't strike at the core of humanity
An emotional core stems from the protagonist, of which Villeneuve has proven to be great with both male (Officer K) and female (Kate in Sicario)

>post no list of their own
Every time.

it's the same individual, or handful of individuals. you can spot his/their posts a mile away. hint: they lack wit, originality, and any semblance of humor. a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, after all.

>google search “contemporary arthouse”
>add a dash of Polanski to bait the pseuds
Gg

he's French

I'm not the one that asked you to post your list.
I'm just the one seeing your list, and calling you a massive unoriginal faggot

Picture related are what I consider the best of 2010 to 2016 and the the red star for the best of the year

Denis is what Nolan thinks he is

Arrival was really good but the ending was sort of ambiguous and confusing

Call a Quebecois a frenchman to his face.

Honestly THIS

I did no such thing, faggot. I've seen every one of those films, and am familiar with the directors, and wouldn't even categorize them under "arthouse". And Ghost Writer is the greatest thriller from the past decade.
>plebs don't even watch entry-level film that gets released and so project their insecurities onto others
You make me sick.

Yes, and yet you have no list to show, so I too can assume you're a faggot who doesn't even watch film.

Holy shit, this so much. Dunkirk is awful and BR2049 is everything critics claim Dunkirk is visually.

>villeneuve's top films of the past years includes Inception
It's the other way round.

Dunkirk is Nolan's best film since Memento

great list. if you're the dishonesty guy, while i give you a lot of shit, i do think you have good taste in films. particularly, the Greenaway film, Hard to Be a God, and Jauja. great films, indeed.

He's one of the few extremely competent filmmakers working today. I know for a fact Dune will at the very least be good because he's at the helm

>French Canadian
>French

Arrival and BR2049 are the exact opposite of cynical.

He's clearly talented. I get the problem people have with the lack of authenticity in middlebrow art, but that's a problem of perception primarily. If you watch Denis' movies with the understanding that they're popcorn films for mass audiences, then you can watch him appropriate aesthetic elements from art house cinema without getting triggered at by his "insincerity." He's not the one taking himself seriously, you are.

I think is the scripts and themes of his recent films, they're not personal to him, more like exercises, incendies leaves you with a great impression

villeneuve makes good movies

Dunkirk is utterly boring garbage, nowhere near as good as Inception, Interstellar, or TDK.

Dunkirk is much more tasteful visually than 2049. It was graded using photochemical techniques, and doesn't really have the corny color contrasts you see in a lot of digitally-graded films.

Look how great this looks
youtube.com/watch?v=83JfjgOe0QE

>He's not the one taking himself seriously, you are
He literally thinks BR2049 is arthouse. He's so far up his own ass it's unbelievable.

The original was pretty arty desu senpai

He said that a producer called it "the most expensive art house film ever made," which made him nervous. He didn't literally say that he made an art film.

I've only seen 3 of his films and they were pretty honest cinema.

Your favorites, not such a thing like "the best for me", or "as i consider"

>There's no earnestness, no yearning or ambition to anything he's done.

we are not in such age. ambition and hope died with the 90's. the 90's died with 9/11

Villeneuve captures perfectly this current era, and that's what you're feeling. you're looking for escapism and you aren't finding it on his films

tl;dr: stick to capeshit

>What is it about him that just sucks the joy, wonder, and excitement out of any script he's given?
It's actually the exact opposite, he is consistently given sub par to mediocre scripts which he then elevates with his execution and visual storytelling to something greater.
Literally go read any script from almost any of his films, especially the recent ones. Even with BR2049, the script is extremely expositiony and descriptive, and Villeneuve cut a good chunk of it out completely and/or turned a lot of lines just into basic visual language. The ending is the best example, what we got in the film is ten times better than the eye roll cheesy narration ending from the script, he knows visual storytelling.

Gives me hope for Dune because Villeneuve finally started working from the script phase already with Eric Roth rather than waiting for the script and then making his changes

>Polanski
Hahahaha automatically dropped. The guy was always a terrible director. Raping a teen girl was the only honest thing he's ever done

"Boring" is not a valid argument, it only says what your mood was while watching the film.
Same as saying "it was fun", that does not indicate anything about the actual quality of the film whatsoever.

What you find boring others can find riveting and vice versa. Some people are immensely bored by Marvel flicks, some of them think they are just pure fun.
Get better arguments

>He's not the one taking himself seriously, you are.
So it's my fault to assume that the final product is trying to be entertaining and engaging and I should treat it as a joke instead? Damn, Dennis, you know how to please the audience.

No, what i'm saying is that you shouldn't perceive his work like you would an art film, and then complain about the "dishonesty" of a movie with a $150 million budget.

Actually only the film version screened in cinemas was graded using photochemical techniques, while the digital intermediates (including bluray) was digitally graded by Hoytema to match the film version as close as possible.

In short, it's literally made to be experienced in a cinema

Who gives a fuck how the look was achieved? How does that matter at all?

>t. Makes Star Wars threads

>how does the difference between the look of film and digital matter at all
Are you serious user

Why bother? They're simply shitposting

biggest hack of our age

>stick with CapeShit kiddo
What an awful answer, the kiddo has a point, not exaggerating he is a hollow human being, but his recent films lack some grand themes, some resonance beyond the excellent filmaking, sicario for example is great and thrilling, a interesting story, but fails in giving you some lasting feeling

If a producer thinks it's arthouse, then Villeneuve must have convinced them it is. For example, Badlands only got made because Malick's friend and Jewish producer financed it with his family company. Would he have done that on whim? No, it was because he believed in Malick. So if Villeneuve himself doesn't believe in it and won't go on record admitting it, but nonetheless spins such talks to anybody who'll listen, it only outs him as dishonest.

Are you sure about that?

Hi IMDB!!
Dishonest Filmmaking
(Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alex Garland, Tom Hooper, Rian Johnson, Alfonso Cuaron, Noah Baumbach, Guillermo del Toro, Damien Chazelle, David Yates, Denis Villenueve) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously.
This directly panders to the IMDb reddit sensibility of quote circlejerking since these hacks are masters of the fools wit, "Quipping" (Not to be confused with the marvel co-opting of the word) , it sounds smart, cool and worldly but in reality there's nothing of substance, the Revenant's attempt at spiritualism was cheap and laughable and whilst someone like Malick has considered his philosophy, Inaurritu wears his introspection on his sleeve to give his film a false sense of depth with pathetic sermonising.

THIS is Dishonest Filmmaking.

They leech the greater works that preceded them; like The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead, but they have nothing else to say.
They act under the guise of deconstruction with surface layer obvious 'social commentary' and a quirky forgettable score praised as 'innovative'. They are all inauthentic sycophants that rely on Oscar buzz and post 9/11 detachment for relevance.

These directors are hacks and will be forgotten to time.


Some notably earnest filmmakers include, but are not limited to:

>Mike Leigh
>The Coen Brothers
>Werner Herzog
>James Cameron
>Mel Gibson
>Terrence Malick
>Gaspar Noe
>Clint Eastwood

How the look was achieved matters in as much as it leads to a different outcome. Dunkirk looks better because of how its look was achieved

Are you retarded? Read my post again you illiterate faggot

>The guy was always a terrible director
Wrong on so many levels, you spewing twerp.

this guy looks like jörg kachelmann kek

>you shouldn't perceive his work like you would an art film
Then why emulate basically everything about art films sans the tired cyberpunk aesthetic?
>muh dishonesty
I just want the director of the film to stand by his work, not debase it for the sake shielding it against criticisms, like you're doing right now.

Dunkirk doesn't look better than 2049

fuck you got me

He's too preoccupied with creating his own style rather than making a truly compelling film independent of his own directorial aspirations. Directors like nolan, tarantino, shyamalan, etc., regardless of how you feel about their work, have built their own unique brand of recognizable filmmaking. Everyone knows a kubrick from a tarkovsky, and a tarkovsky from a bergman, and so on. The important to remember is that their vision for theproject comes before their own celebrity.

Villeneuve is trying to force his own signature which results in a tedious albeit technically sound final product

>If a producer thinks it's arthouse, then Villeneuve must have convinced them it is
What an utterly dumb statement, I'm sure even you don't believe it.

I single post-credits blank frame from Dunkrik looks better than then entirety of 2049.

I agree that it was made to be experienced in cinemas, but intentionally grading to look as close to the film print as possible is a great guideline because it guards against the excesses of digital grading, which most colorists fall victim to

This has to be pasta,if not, save it, make this triggered user a meme

I backed it up with exactly why I believe it. What do you think gets said in the process of finding backers during Hollywood assembly-line projects like this?

>If a producer thinks it's arthouse, then Villeneuve must have convinced them it is.
Why would you make that assumption? Not every producer has that sort of relationship with their director. It's not uncommon for them to have entirely different perceptions of the film.

What a dumb over exaggerated thing to say, why do you fuckers have to pretend like one looks like the best film ever made and the other like dogshit whenever anyone compares any two films just to make your point seem valid, it's pathetic

>but his recent films lack some grand themes
Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 both have 'grand' themes. Dune, if he makes it, will have grand themes. I don't understand how this isn't b8
So I take it Hacksaw Ridge was your film of the year?

good list, but I still like Villeneuve :)

he's cheeto dust

It's called "workmanlike." He doesn't really do anything original, creative etc, but imitates actual good directors, so it comes off as competent, but not striking/resonant.

He's a hack.

...

you are confusing themes with subjects my man, and yes, i also hate the dishonest meme

Art house cinema tends to have particular tonal and aesthetic elements as well has a sort of metaphorical depth. You can borrow from its aesthetic without having to make an actual art house film.

>not debase it for the sake shielding it against criticisms
It's only a debasement if you think that art house cinema is inherently superior to popular cinema, which I don't think is the case.

i honestly think OP, or the 'dishonesty' pusher, does not have a firm grasp of basic film making technique, process, criticism, or theory. hence, threads like this where he attempts to back up his arguments and fails miserably only to fault those questioning his theory.