My wife and I watched The Dark knight a couple months ago. It was my third time seeing it; the other two times being in the wake of its release. We opted to donate our copy to the library. It just didn't do much for us. I don't know if Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker is just that good, or the bulk of the movie is really somewhat lackluster, but we hardly cared about scenes in which he was absent.

I used to own Inception. I either lost it, or lent it to someone who never returned it. We finally got ourselves another copy. It had been so long since I had seen it. My tastes have changed a bit and, especially considering my recent Dark Knight experience and feelings about Tenet, I wasn't sure what to expect. I wanted to like it...

...and, boy, did I!

What a good movie. That movie should be a "reference" for what a 21st century action movie should be. The day after our viewing, we realized it had no sexuality/nudity/innuendo, very minimal foul language, and actually very minimal violence. They shoot at each other a lot, and get into some fist fights, but it's not graphic in the least. A good movie needs none of that stuff. Movies nowadays often lean heavily on the shock-and-awe and "edginess" of graphic violence, swearing, and nudity. Inception is testament to the fact a truly good movie doesn't need it; and you don't miss it, or even notice its absence while viewing.

We own Dunkirk, and have seen it a couple times in the last five years. I think it'll get another watch in the next couple months.

Before that, however, I am going to give Tenet another go. We own it. I bought it upon it's physical release, solely because I felt it may be the spiritual successor to Inception. I have only seen it once, and was underwhelmed. My wife didn't even watch an hour of it. She said she'll stick with it on this next viewing.

I am going to get a re-watch of Interstellar in the plans too. I have only seen it once, and remember being wowed. Insomnia and The Prestige are others I've only seen once, and would like to watch again. I think The Dark Knight trilogy is dead to me.

I have seen all of Nolan's feature-length films aside from Oppenheimer, as we abide by a strict no-nudity policy. I am sure I'll be able to view a edited version at some point. I think his upcoming Odyssey film will likely contain nudity as well, considering the subject matter.

I know Nolan is a generally lauded director, and I think I have to agree with that sentiment.

It’s pretty much Nolan, Scorsese, PTA, and Villeneuve these days. I wish there were more.

Tenet is easily Nolan's weakest film (or perhaps tied with Batman Begins for that spot). So don't feel bad if you are still underwhelmed even after further viewings.

Oppenheimer starts out a bit weak, but the last quarter or so makes up for it. I spent most of the movie going "What's the big deal... Why is everyone raving about this film?" And then eventually "Ah... that's what they mean".

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:
It’s pretty much Nolan, Scorsese, PTA, and Villeneuve these days. I wish there were more.

Sam Mendes
Robert Eggers

I don't want to derail this thread, but I think Eggers doesn't yet have the catalogue to back-up claims that he's a hot shot. I saw The Witch, and enjoyed it, though I won't revisit it. I am not super curious about his other three films.

The other directors mentioned so far have much larger filmographies than Eggers. He's trendy right now, due to the release of Nosferatu. That's not to say he won't become a heavyweight though.

On Mendes: I was super let down by 1917.

I haven't seen enough PTA films to have an opinion on him.

I'll counter by suggesting that if you've only seen one lone film that they've made, you're not really in a position to declare that a director "isn't good enough yet".

Eggers' four film filmography puts many other directors with 5x-10x the catalogue to shame. Quality over quantity.

(But based on your earlier comment about a strict no nudity policy, then you'll want to skip his other 3 films anyway.)

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
On Mendes: I was super let down by 1917.

It would appear that we have distinctly opposite tastes in film.

I agree that my one-film Eggers experience isn't enough. Our household's no-nudity policy disqualifies his others (except maybe The Northman), as well as a re-watch of the one I have seen.

I was coincidentally very enthusiastic about WWI leading up to the release of 1917, and had (likely unfairly) built it up a certain way in my mind. I remember I was decidedly done with it after he awoke in the burning town. I wanted 1917 to be like Nolan's Dunkirk, but in a WWI setting.

I'd add the Coens and David Fincher to that list of top tier directors. Maybe Cuaron, as well. They all makes great films.

As for Nolan, his work is so much better than 95% of movies that come out that I don't get too caught up in which of his are not quite as good as others. It's a bit like saying I don't listen to Rubber Soul because it's no Sgt Peppers.

I personally really liked Tenet because it was much more of a simple action thriller than most of his other stuff. Perhaps not as profound but I loved the action sequences. About 10 minutes in, he tells us not to think too hard about it. I enjoyed it much more than Oppenheimer, although I need to watch Opp again. It is no Inception, but what is?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Sam Mendes
Robert Eggers

I could see someone making a case for Sam. American Beauty was a flawless film and I’m a big fan of Revolutionary Road, especially Shannon’s performance as he was an absolute riot. Road to Perdition was excellent as well but Hanks and Newman in the same film, well..
But the 007 films while good, were nothing noteworthy to me. So I wouldn’t put him or especially Eggers in the same category. I see a lot of Kubrick in Nolan, obviously nobody is as good as Stanley nor ever will be, but I do consider Nolan to be the best director of film alive today with Scorsese being the only other director in the same breath. The Aviator, Wolf, just couldn’t see anyone else alive pulling either off. PTA has been remarkably solid. He’s been putting on a clinic since Hard Eight.

Like I said, I wish there were more. Consistency is key and tenure. Denis is the latest to me and I only list him because I was blown away by Sicario, and BR2049 which I consider to be one of the top 3 sci-fi films ever made with 2001 and the OG Matrix film. I really want him to get done with this Dune business so I can watch him conquer other genres again. Ridley Scott would get a nod from me as well but he’s so inconsistent. He’ll do something absolutely brilliant then direct a stinker. Hit, miss, back and forth.

Different strokes, we all don’t have to agree. Covid, the strike, DEI/woke this and that. Film has always been something I could count on, not anymore. Film is in its worst state, IMO, ever. I watched a Maaaat Daaaaaamon interview in 2024, while he was doing that eating wings bullshit. He said something I agree with 100% during that. You aren’t getting the Rounders, Good Will Hunting, the Rainmaker, type films anymore, because films of that caliber were dependent on the secondary market of DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals to cover the spread. I’ll never understand Gen Z, and make no mistake, the entire industry is wrapped around that target demographic. They state a 2 hour film is too much for them with their ADHD but yet they’ll binge watch 8 hours of some episodic crap (how does that make sense?) and most everything now is just that, on 10-15 platforms, that are exclusive. I used to watch 250-300 films a year (Netflix Blu Ray snail mail) foregoing commercial TV, series, sports, etc, now it’s down to just a few or one hand of fingers a month. And most of the time they are an extreme letdown. I’ve just succumbed to re-watching films of the golden era, the 70’s, and 80’s, 90’s, and oughts. The phones and social media, wittle videos on Tik-Thot and YT are more important today than cinema or even music.

And I agree with Yellow, I should have included the Coens. They deserve to be in the list.

I decided to dig into PTA's filmography, to pick out something to watch. None of them really appeal to me, and it seems he consistently has graphic content. A great director he may be, but he's perhaps one whose stuff I won't appreciate.

I have seen There Will be Blood twice, and liked it well-enough, but it's not one I am eager to make a habit of re-watching.

I reckon I agree with the Coen Brothers. Michael Mann is another I think may merit a mention. Black Hat was a turd of a story, but potentially maintained all his awesome directorial flourishes. His other films are unquestionably awesome. I haven't seen the Ferrari movie though.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I decided to dig into PTA's filmography, to pick out something to watch. None of them really appeal to me, and it seems he consistently has graphic content. A great director he may be, but he's perhaps one whose stuff I won't appreciate.

Boogie Nights and Inherent Vice had nudity but I wouldn’t say most of his films are graphic. Horror movies are graphic, PTA films, well those 2 come to mind because they both had frontal nudity. Licorice Pizza was harmless in that regard and a pretty good film. Phantom Thread isn’t graphic and excellent. I don’t recall anything graphic in The Master, Punch Drunk Love, or Magnolia. Magnolia is his greatest film IMO and a masterpiece. Definitely some hard cursing in it by Tom Cruise’s character and it is intense but I could say the same thing about Stanley Kubrick’s films.

I'll investigate further, based on your feedback.

I must have missed something here but nudity is part of life and movies, what is wrong with that?

Maybe five years ago or so, my wife made it known that she wanted to avoid films with nudity. I respect her wishes. Any significant cultural contributions to film that I might miss out on as a result are much less important to me than cooperating with my wife. I do hold the opinion, like many of us, that the hyper-sexualization of western culture is a big part of our contemporary problem. In most cases, I think nudity in films is 100% unnecessary. The motivation to be provocative and edgy drives the frequency of such content; to some in film: provocative=good. It's a gimmick.

Early on, my wife's policy did serve to occasionally frustrate me, as I felt I was missing out on films I might otherwise really enjoy. Now I really don't care. They're just movies after all.

Nudity is part of life; certainly. In my life, the person I care most about would prefer that the only nudity I have regular intentional exposure to is her own. It's a sentiment I can respect.

I am sure some of my comments in this thread have made participants curious, so I reckon it's a good thing hberttmank asked about it.

Concerning the ongoing conversation: Further research has revealed that PTA doesn't make movies that we care to watch. He may be a good director, but his subject matter I care nothing about. It seems I've already seen the only film of his that is the exception to his usual themes. I liked it, and I shall let it serve as my sole exposure to his stuff.

Hyper-sexualization is porn, not film. If anything, nudity in film has been massively reduced since the 80’s and 90’s. It is not common at all now. I have the opposite view. Americans are far too uptight about the human body. Europe, nude beaches are common and if not that, topless is common. It’s just our bodies, and nothing more. Even in the Bible Adam and Eve were naked until they ate from the tree God said not to touch. So one could argue we’d be all running around naked today barring that incident.

I can understand as a Christian myself (Catholic) not wanting to watch something like Basic Instinct or Showgirls which are meant to be provocative. But we aren’t talking about those kinds of films. Film is art and should be treated as such. Painters have been painting nudes for thousands of years and I wouldn’t call it porn etc. Shakespeare wrote of incest, etc. Cursing, nudity, are parts of life and as long as it’s is not overdone it could very well be part of the story being presented. I consider PTA’s Boogie Nights to be one of the very best films ever made by anyone. The subject matter is porn but if you watch the film you realize he is showing the bad side of it, what it does to people, the drug use (an addiction) and while most of it is comedic, actually it’s hilarious, he isn’t glamorizing any of it. He is shaming it. The lesson is this is bad, drugs are bad, and most every character, the film shows their fall from grace, to rock bottom. So there are excellent lessons about life in there. Anyone watching it, and paying attention, well the porn industry is the last thing they will want to do with their life. So to portray it as he did with the final message and warnings he achieved in showing, in a comedic way, was pure genius. Magnolia is collection of stories about extreme situations with families and characters, from a down on his luck cop, a homosexual man who was a genius as a child with a litany of personal flaws and problems, with parallels to another genius level kid on a game show with an overbearing father. A vile patriarch whose poor parenting has led to his child, now a grown man, with a lot of problems, being a deceitful and vile person of interest in the media. A nurse trying to give care to this same dying patriarch. It goes on with even more characters and it’s tied altogether in a way I’ve never seen done before, with a relentless score underneath it all. All are extreme stories, but extremely realistic. Nothing about his films is cookie cutter or safe. He pushes boundaries and in art, this is necessary or your films are nothing more than stereotypical popcorn films that are here today, gone tomorrow. Films such as these will be watched and studied in 100 years, 200 years, etc.

I respect your viewpoint on the matter. It may come down to me not being quite the film connoisseur that you are. You approach the films from a more film-educated enthusiast perspective than I do. Where I may very well perceive something as pretentious, you are able to recognize it as a degree of art that I don't see.

Yes to some degree that is true. But it’s more about being strong enough in my faith that I can go into those worlds, or stories really, and they don’t push me into sin or influence me to be like this or that. It’s just a story and it’s not going to change me one iota. If anything it shows me what not to do, what I don’t want to be involved with or the extreme nature of others lives as life is extreme for many. It’s just film, like music, or paintings, it’s just art. Art can be things we love or things we detest. A Clockwork Orange is a very difficult film for me to watch. The “ultra” violence. That and the hedonistic nature of this gang that is the subject matter. But it’s also a masterpiece of a film and one of Kubrick’s best films which is really saying something as I and many others who are cinema lovers consider him to be the best director in the history of film. It’s one of the best films I have ever seen but certainly not one of my favorite to watch as it’s extremely difficult to view, which was the director’s intent. There are stories in the Bible that are worse, more death, more destruction, and mayhem.

Just heard that Interstellar is up on Netflix starting January 1st. Don't know how long it will be up there.

Just thought I'd mention in case anyone wants to watch it and doesn't have a disc to do so.

In the midst of the Tenet re-watch. WTF. This movie is somethin' else. I do think it's one that gets more enjoyable with more viewings though. Nolan really goes "full retard" after the highway robbery scene. After that scene, the inverted stuff is front-and-center, and stuff gets wild in a hurry. I've been doing my best to abide by the woman's advice after the opera raid: Don't try to understand it, as YellowJacket pointed out. It's tough to do though. There's enough emphasis on the inverted stuff, that you can't help but try to understand it.

I have noticed that Nolan opted for a lot of rapid-fire, matter-of-fact dialogue in Tenet. My wife and I always watch with subtitles, which makes it easier to catch what's being said, but then your attention to the subtitles detracts from your attention to Nolan's enjoyable direction.

The bottom line may be that Tenet is just a lot. It's Nolan's time bending obsession turned up to eleven, and you gotta be either really stinkin' clever, or content to just enjoy the visuals while having absolutely no idea why some people are wearing oxygen masks and moving funny relative to everyone else.

On a Scorsese sidebar: we've got Silence on deck. The subject matter interests me, and I have wanted to see it for years.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
On a Scorsese sidebar: we've got Silence on deck. The subject matter interests me, and I have wanted to see it for years.

I think it's one of his best. And definitely an interesting subject matter.

He's reportedly working on adapting another book from that same author next, "A Life of Jesus".

Watching Interstellar on my old PS2 after I cleaned the lid-closed contacts with a little Electronics cleaner. Picture is adequate but I enjoy the score throughout the film more. The 1.25 second tick while on Miller's Planet is one year on earth. I should watch Momento again, perhaps I'll understand more.