[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203702751

Eddy Q wrote:

^ All good points. My main issue with Nolan’s movies is, for all their high-concept ideas and technical skill, they lack tonal boldness, sticking to the tailer-made tonal combination of the modern action blockbuster: sombre, emotional gravitas, deft action and the occasional trailer-ready quip. Take Inception for example. It delves into the subconscious, dreams within dreams, without ever truly embracing any kind of surreal aesthetic (because that would be too weird right?) It has a smart script, inspired architecture, and yet a bunch of cool stuff happens without really taking full imaginative flight.

Nolan is often compared, for better or worse, with Kubrick in his technological prowess and emotional “chilliness”, but Kubrick was far less afraid to subvert audiences’ expectations of serious subject matter: Dr. Strangelove is an obvious example, but A Clockwork Orange combines horrific scenes of violence with warped humour and outright farce, while even something as far-reaching and profound as 2001:A Space Odyssey has the childishly bizarre ‘Daisy, Daisy’ moment punctuate the most sinister and suffocating segment of the film. Nolan’s contemporary Paul Thomas Anderson is similarly bolder with moments of absurdity even in his most thematically penetrating films: “I drink your milkshake!”, “I wanna fart in your face”. I’m not suggesting Nolan needs to go that far, but he could afford to loosen up a little. Though maybe I’m being unfair; with his high budgets he may not be able to afford to go too far off the beaten path.

I totally agree with you.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203700395

Eddy Q wrote:

Which are? I’m actually curious.

I am sorry for replying this late, I didn’t get the notification and I rarely open Derby now.

First and foremost, no one would be able to completely understand this film after one watch, I will wait for the digital release so I can watch it in my home.

Now as for problems, they can be just my personal opinions and personal issues with Nolan.

-He focuses too much on plot and scale that sometimes his characters stop appearing as actual human beings and more a tool to progress the film. This happened especially in “TENET”, I didn’t get attached to any character except for Debicki’s. Most people will tell you that their favourite Nolan film is either “Inception” or “Interstellar”, now people are revisiting “Prestige” and it is becoming many people’s favourite Nolan. These are the films where characters felt human.

-Sound Mixing of his films in theatres, you are not able to understand every dialogue with full clarity but then it might only be a problem with the theatre, I go to.

-Not often but sometimes, dialogues in his film which was a strong case in “TENET”, you will see it when you watch the film.

-Sometimes, it appears as Nolan is just too much obsessed with mind-benders just for the sake of it.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203690657

Huge Nolan fan here but TENET has all the problems I have with Nolan as a filmmaker.
It is better if you see it on a big screen, be it Cinema or at your home if you have a huge TV.

Not a top tier Nolan work but a hugely ambitious effort nonetheless.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203687445

Exactly

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203513834

I love Tom Hardy and love to see him on screen but I have to go with Michael Fassbender.

Now both are one of the best acting talents of their respective generations but Fassbender wins this one for me so far.

Hardy’s acting can at times feel so much focused on putting on an accent and looking tough whereas Fassbender can achieve better role depth which is so much important for me.

Both have been great in not so good films, Fassbender was magnificent as Magneto and Hardy were brilliant in Legend.

Fassbender was perfect in Shame for which he should win Best Actor in 2011 and Hardy was perfect in Locke for which he should have been a nominee but 2013 was blood bath.

And Yes, both should utilize their talents with better scripts and roles, they owe it to their acting gift and skills.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203513825

Paul Thomas Anderson is best 70s born filmmaker alive.

That’s saying something.

He should get more recognition.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203513821

Bee wrote:

No. He has impeccable visual flair but a glaring flaw in the quality of his work is that Nolan does not know how to create fleshed out characters that are interesting. He relies on either source material or star power to carry these, at best, two-dimensional characters and ultimately the storyline. He’s not a one trick pony cause Inception, The Dark Knight, and Memento all range from good to great but he is the epitome of “style over substance”

I can’t put in words about how much I agree with some of the points you made in this post.
Brilliant.

Though I myself consider himself to be one of the greatest filmmakers ever for what he has done in the last 20 years alone, I mean what he has done for good and mature commercial Cinema and the way he edits his films.

But I have to agree that Nolan needs to mature his way of writing his characters and should write stronger characters with the passage of time which I think he will.
He should focus more on substance too sometimes, he did it in Prestige and Memento and it was brilliant.

Nolan is biggest filmmaker alive for sure and has been since 2008 and that’s a huge achievement in itself.
He’ll improve with the passage of time and only climb up the ladder of al time greats but as you mentioned some of his flaws marvellously, he should look into them.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203509878

Stank83 wrote:

I can see someone like Sean Penn playing White.

Di Caprio will still play the leading character.

With this one and the new Adam McKay film (or something else), he’s starting this decade with incredible projects on the horizon.

What if Daniel Day-Lewis comes out of retirement to play White?
He’s good friends with Scorsese and DiCaprio.

I’m not sure if they will be staying true to book if they are making Ernest Buckhart the lead character.

Yes, DiCaprio with Mckay2.O alongside two absolute Queens would be great.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203508476

Stank83 wrote:

It’s Scorsese’s The Searchers meets There Will Be Blood.

This, I have been having these vibes from KOFM for so long now.

I heard DiCaprio saying that from now he’ll look to more interesting characters of every script than lead ones necessarily.
This was at a conference for OUATIH.

Either Scorsese is telling the story from Hales’s point of view or either DiCaprio is playing a supporting role, seeing from novel Moley Buckhart and Tom White are the most important characters of the book.

According to a new article from Hollywood Reporter, Paramount dropped production because DiCaprio was not playing lead anymore.

Just wondering who’s playing Tom White right now?
Hoping for Matt Damon or Mathew McConaughey.

This will be a good picture.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203460726

ENGLAND wrote:

I did enjoy Wolf of Wall Street and I do believe it should have been Leo’s Oscar, but grossing $400 million at the Box Office for a $100 million picture means that the studio probably broke even or maybe lost money. Yes, the $400 million looks good, but when you factor in marketing, filming production fees, theater cut, and post production fees, they were likely aiming for $600 million+.

That could be the reason why The Irishman looked risky and Netflix was the only company that said yes.

You have a point but studio don’t look for $600 millions out of a $100 millions BioPic.
For that film have to have budget like TENET,DUNE or any SuperHero film which is made on a budget $200 millions plus.

The Wolf Wall Street or any other drama film which have production budget of 90-110 millions have P&A budget of 20-30 millions.
Ford vs Ferrari
1917
Ad Astra
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
These films are recent examples of same budget range.

Not all films have P&A budget double it’s production budget like Sci-Fi and SuperHero films usually do.

The Revenant had production budget of $135 millions and it had P&A of 35 millions so it varies.

Incase of Wall Street it made almost $400 millions theatrically on a budget of $120 millions approximately including P&A.

So I would consider it a huge win for studios nonetheless.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203460002

The2ndAvenger wrote:

To be fair, it was based on the autobiography by Belfort. And while they might not be HUGE stars, Jonah Hill, Matthew McConaughey, Jon Favreau, and Jean Dujardin were all fairly famous.

But it’s not as Belfort’s book was same as Twilight or Harry Potter.

90% of people in world came to know about Jordan Belfort through this film.

Jonah Hill wasn’t a huge Box Office Draw, he was still very young.

Other names mentioned had cameos and I don’t remember if they were even advertised as huge part of the film.

Even Mathew Mcconaughey had a guest experience in it and he was in his revamp period in 2013 so I would not say him a draw in 2013.

It’s not like it was The Departed,Ocean Trilogy or a film by Chris Nolan,Tarantino or Spielberg.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif]

#1203459885

People don’t really realise how big of a Box Office Risk and Success was “The Wolf of Wall Street”.

A Rated R film which 3hrs long.

Not part of any Franchise.

Not based on a popular selling novel or novel series.

No huge star other than only Leonardo DiCaprio.

Came out against huge competition.

Massive budget of $100 millions considering what genre and runtime it had.

Barely avoided NC-17 rating.

So,I would say that earning almost $400 millions at worldwide box office is one of huge box office success story a film has ever had.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 3 weeks ago by Hammad Asif.
• This reply was modified 4 months, 3 weeks ago by Hammad Asif.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203459134

Quentin Tarantino is right.

Filmmakers lose their touch as they grow older,there are however rare exceptions.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203454088

Concealing his tears every time he lost a major award

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply

[Hammad Asif Joined: Sep 4th, 2015 Topics: 46 Posts: 1297 View Predictions]

#1203452387

Loved Ford vs Ferrari but Parasite should have also won Best Editing.

I would even say that it’s editing is it’s Top2 best parts alongside Bong’s direction and writing.

Kubrick-Tarkovsky-Scorsese-Bergman-Bresson-Kurosawa

Reply