Fella

5y

Rogan interview was great

Jugern0t

5y

Link?

Fella

5y

It’s on Spotify

Fella

5y

Rogan interview was great

Baby Goat

5y

Thats just indicating of his consistency tbh. If WOWS is Scorsese at his worse then

Reformed

5y

He’s pretty consistent tbh but nah WOWS one of his best tbh

Baby Goat

5y

Thats just indicating of his consistency tbh. If WOWS is Scorsese at his worse then

Reformed

5y

Good job

cldtrlsslfls56

5y

Jesus Christ, what doesn't "even begins to compare to Scorsese's immensely deep and dense filmography"? Sorry, but even the John Flynn TV films are better than the best Scorsese films. And you can't even begin to compare a true twilight western film like China 9, Liberty 37 to absolute dogshit like Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo, or forgettable moronic films like Irishman ("the best american movie ever made", people were saying on Letterboxd). Now, that's what it doesn't even begin to compare. Scorsese has great films, anyone can agree to that, but they don't come anywhere near close to Monte Hellman, John Flynn, Brian de Palma, Arthur Penn, Coppolla or even Woody Allen's best efforts. He's truly the most overrated director, possibly ever? Especially considering he achieved a type of space on the discourse of cinema that makes it impossible for you to speak bad of him because he's "by all accounts one of the greatest filmmakers the world has seen". Of course, we have to respect the official film history and the man that makes a Netflix ad mimicking an orchestra conductor while he directs the film (wow, he's really an auteur, the auteur, I should say). So yeah, I take this "exaggerations" over not talking about any of these filmmakers at all.

cldtrlsslfls56

5y

By the way, if you are able to watch Ann Hui, Hong sang-soo, Abbas Kiarostami, King Hu, Edward Yang, HHH and even Tarantino is thanks to the continuous efforts of a really select group of french critics (Charles Tesson, Pierre Rissient, Olivier Assayas) that made anything but appeal to a film canon. A bunch of 'contrarian old men yelling at the clouds', I guess.

Reformed

5y

Recommending lesser known filmmakers doesn’t make you a contrarian

Being an a****** saying every respected filmmaker is trash to prop up your guys is being contrarian

Reformed

5y

Recommending lesser known filmmakers doesn’t make you a contrarian

Being an a****** saying every respected filmmaker is trash to prop up your guys is being contrarian

Fella

5y

He’s just regurgitating Peter Greenaway talking points.

cldtrlsslfls56

5y

I say I don't like Scorsese than all of a sudden I'm "saying every respected filmmaker is trash", while complimenting Tarantino, John Ford, Kubrick, John Huston, Howard Hawks and talking about Kiarostami, Yang and HHH.

Reformed

5y

Saying all of Tarantino’s most loved movies are trash is not exactly a compliment. Even when it comes to those filmmakers you gotta belittle their most loved films to prop up the lesser known ones. You a contrarian thru and thru and display boomer qualities to where I’m sure Armond White would love to hire you as an assistant

It’s okay to like popular movies guy

cldtrlsslfls56

5y

Go back to reading Neil Bahadur.

Reformed

5y

He’s pretty consistent tbh but nah WOWS one of his best tbh

Fella

5y

Since when is he a big Scorsese defender.

cldtrlsslfls56

5y

Again, you really think that someone needs to think like everyone else and if that's not the case they're contrarians. If Death Proof and Jackie Brown are the "lesser known" films to you, or even "small films" of his career, maybe you're hanging out on the wrong parts of cinephilia, and reading the wrong critics, and taking the established film canon as the objective truth.

Fella

5y

Since when is he a big Scorsese defender.

Reformed

5y

I mean death proof and Jackie Brown are definitely the lesser known films of Tarantino’s career. That is a fact. I never claimed they are smaller films period because they’re both obviously very well known films cuz it’s still Tarantino just like how Panic Room or Hard Eight are still very well known in general.

Also cinema is an entirely subjective art form, you will find one area of critics or moviegoers who tell you Forrest Gump is a masterpiece just like you’ll find one area that says Come and See is the greatest war movie oat. I just find it to be a weird mentality when you just want to tear down respected and loved films simply for the sake of promoting something not talked about as much. This mentality is literally why I don’t read a lot of those snobby critics on letterboxd or even the scaruffi or armond white types. I f*** with people who see cinema as something to enjoy and explore, not something to gatekeep and act holier than thou with. That goes with the contrarians, the social justice warriors, or the nitpicky weirdos

Fella

5y

Film nerds of this sort hate middle brow cinema. They champion obscure art films and genre works that are typically deemed bad by more mainstream critics. Nolan, Fincher, PTA, Tarantino, Scorsese, and even Kubrick are much more harshly critiqued by them for falling in the middle. It’s the equivalent of Scaruffi like I said trashing on the Beatles, U2, and Radiohead. For me it’s more interesting to appreciate that stuff alongside what works in the middle rather than directly compare it. They’re functioning well on different levels.

cldtrlsslfls56

5y

I love Kubrick, I love at least three films by Tarantino, I love Zodiac and I like Millennium and Social Network very much. I also like some films by Scorsese. But I guess I'm a Scaruffi-type film snob because I don't like the obvious official and tired film history.