Imagine a Korean film starring lesbians thinking about best picture :cmon: Major kudos to Parasite for that though.

The writing in Handmaiden triumphs Parasite — there were more reveals in the story and that could've ruined the whole plot but actually made the whole thing come together nicely. Parasite mostly leaves these reveals for the end instead of doing it systematically throughout which made it feel like a chore. There was more put into the planning scenes. Sure leaving things to the viewer's interpretation is cool just anticipated more coming,

Another thing, the music in Handmaiden stands out better with all the smoke and mirrors.

Handmaiden cinematography is breathtaking too

These aren’t hot takes. calling acclaimed directors pretentious and trash isn’t a hot take

you’ve got to be kidding
What does that even mean lmfao arrogantly written

his films post-moonrise? yah
everything else? no

This thread is full of bad, undercooked and misinformed takes not actually hot ones
Wes Anderson’s movies aren’t pretentious at all just say you don’t like them

pretentious isn't the right word, but he noticeably fell off after moonrise after making some of the greatest films ever and essentially became a parody of himself, losing the soul that made him special and became way to obsessed over his own formalism. (isle of dogs and Budapest hotel are quite embarrassing from the same guy that brought us The Darjeeling Limited & The Life Aquatic just a decade earlier)

says who lol? Grand Budapest is a lot of people’s favourite Wes. “Essentially became a parody of himself” - that’s his whole style
Nobody considers grand Budapest to be some fall off. It’s a very good movie

you can look at 60 seconds of Wes and know that’s one of his. How many directors from this era can you say have a distinct and iconic style like that? You don’t have to like his movies. Its just silly to say he’s trash and a parody

Budapest is where he lost his focus and humanity in his films and became to hyper focused on his own formalist obsessions to deliver any real emotional value that was in so many of his earlier films. While all his other films had depth beyond the quirk and style after Moonrise he lost it all.

I mean I agree it lacks the emotional depth of his previous work but as a stand-alone film was pretty solid. His only fault is trying new things with his storytelling style. I don’t think it’s fair at all to reduce it to “quirk and style”. The cast was amazing, the score, the set design, all the things we love about his movies.
I’ve never considered his work to be emotionally devastating or super deep. His movies to me have always been a sort of feast for the eyes, an exercise in escapism
A world to disappear in for 2 hours and wished was real

DDL has got to be the most overrated actor of his generation. “Best actor all of time, of his time” etc not even close. How many iconic roles does he really have? Method aside has anyone actually watched DDL and felt he took over the scene. Other than TWBB I really don’t think he has an iconic role

taxi driver kinda sucks

Not liking anime isnt a personality trait

Anime haters are cornier than weebs

I disagree with his work never being "super deep", it has always had the layer of quirk and a jokey tone overall but all of his films had deeper themes to unravel from them and to learn from. Darjeeling Limited deals with family trauma and uses the set up of the boys going to India alone together to explore how that trauma and how you were brought up will bleed into ur adulthood and how you treat people and the world around you and the boys growing out of their childish mentalities. And Life Aquatic & Rushmore both dive into how obsession with one's own niche can lead to disconnect and isolation (I feel Life Aquatic did this overall better but Rushmore also brushes onto this topic). The main key here is that no matter how jokey the films got I came out of it feeling something and feeling as if I had learned something about myself and how Wes views his own life and his films, even Moonrise Kingdom though being probably his most sappy had the theme of love overcoming. But with Budapest though well acted and overall technically well made i come out of it bored and never felt touched by anything in it, just tonal confusion and a lack of ideas story wise. Of course I can see someone liking it purely off how nice looking it is but when those visuals don't even necessarily communicate anything they felt dull to me, which is something I had never felt with his other works. I mean in every shot of Life Aquatic not only does he use the quirk to his advantage but it moves the story in a completely new way while Budapest just left unnecessary and tedious no matter how pretty it was, style could totally BE the substance in film but this just didn't have anything to offer.

Not even gonna try and talk about Isle of dogs cuz jesus what a mess

Anime ass niggas be basing their whole personalities off the fact they watch it tho

Well you’re implying that Budapest is about nothing. That’s not true at all, it’s his most political. He depicted the rise of fascism in Europe solely through its impact on the European people instead of focusing on leaders. The passage of time at the hotel, Zero’s personal life, the effect of nostalgia were all really interesting devices
it’s not his most personal but it tackles a lot of heavy ideas. It certainly is substantial

i agree with this btw, DDL is a cop out choice for best actor of his time when really he hasn't delivered all that much

i watched the shining, clockwork orange and a bit of 2001
im really into symbolism thats meticulously detailed in its execution
those films felt kinda cold and like the characters have no genuine personality, theyre just plot devices and act weird
you real for this, most cinephiles just s*** on me because of this

The setting and backdrop of the 60s in Mad Men is misdirection on the part of Weiner. That much is clear by once you get into the early episodes of season 2. Rather than functioning as an exploratory work into that time period, Mad Men uses that decade of rapid change to symbolize the lack of control the main characters have while in the midst of their identity crises, despite their own perception of stability in their quiet suffering.

Here's a series that brushes over several landmark events with stray dialogue here and loose radio clippings there in an attempt to convey their own message, and it's why an episode like The Flood, portraying MLK's assassination through the lens of upper class white people is extremely disingenuous.

It fits in the landscape of Mad Men because they had spun a meticulous web that ensured it wouldn't look out of place, but what purpose does it actually serve other than Weiner beating his chest that he's a good showrunner?

And it's funny because Mad Men actually highlights racial tension/race issues in the first minute of the series and sporadically returns to it with the elevator scenes, Y&R waterbagging etc. And there's Dawn, a character with a lot of potential that goes absolutely nowhere from the beginning of season 5 all the way to The Flood because of Weiner. It's an episode that should've been an obvious climax of sorts like JFK but fizzles out into nothing because they were tending to other roads they had already been on.

That episode to me symbolizes how Mad Men had started to lose their way in season 5 and became an excruciating watch for a lot of season 6. It's my favourite show of all time, but it's an arrogant, flawed series especially when it comes to representation.

what
the thing that makes everyone clock an Anderson film beyond its visual presentation that literally every single film by him is about family dynamics with a young male in the lead. That can be the biological family or a stand-in family as it is in MK or GBH. In GBH he actually does something fairly unprecedented in how it is a fictional WW2 situation. Something real (though. thinly veiled fictionalized) dramatic he usually shies away from.

His visual style is important and necessary for him to match the cartoonish characters. He goes overboard to normalize the outlandish. It's pretty blatant how he communicates through set and costume design - the characters are defined by that as they are in all his films.

incidentally Shining and Clockwork are towards the bottom of Kubrick for me. Plenty of purposely cold characers there though - but obviously on purpose.
Meticulous is definitely Kubrick though.
Now Kubrick isn't exactly some sort of terribly hard to grasp or out there auteur but depending on how much film you've seen maybe you need to start with some of his more straight forward films? Sort of ease into it. Paths of Glory for a war movie, Strangelove for satire, The Killing for straight up noir-heist.

Maybe you'll then find a way to stay with the cold characters and appreciate what he's trying to do.

Or you can just skip him. But I think every one of his films is worth watching but if you don't like em its just a waste of. time

When they see a shawty that likes anime and that makes her more attractive all of a sudden

But they'll also gate keep and test women's anime knowledge for whatever weird ass reason.

Oh we talking about actors who rarely steal the scene then ima have to go with my boy

Ryan Gosling