Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gee_gra t1_j6ijds5 wrote

Reply to comment by SwimmingLaddersWings in I just finally watched Bone Tomahawk last night by utopiandiorama

He made a few intensely violent movies, he's not breaking some ridiculous new ground

3

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_j6ik6yt wrote

You can make a violent movie well or you can make it very very badly. He shows a very good command of his budget and he always gets a good performance from his cast. He’s only a hand full of movies into his career, he shows a huge amount of talent.

5

gee_gra t1_j6imqnu wrote

I mean, those are all good qualities for a director to have, but kind of a low bar to set

−3

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_j6infr8 wrote

If you say so. I mean, firstly, there’s not that much violence in his films, it’s just the moments are memorable and make an impact because they often feel out of place, but violent directors include Tarantino, Lynch, Fincher, Cronenberg, Pekinpah, Verhovan, De Palmer, Miike, Stone, Scorsese, Noe, and Haneke. I think you’re pressed to say the bar is low just because a film has violent parts in it. This isn’t an argument to say he deserves to be in the above tier of directors, but I’d argue he is more than he isn’t. Compare him to the hundreds of other violent directors the world has already forgotten because they have no talent, I think he has a promising back catalogue.

0

gee_gra t1_j6iwf4q wrote

>not that much violence

If you mean like, in terms of number of acts of violence — yeah I guess, but the way he presents violence is intense and lurid in a way that comes off as "there for the sake of it" at certain points for me

1

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_j6jiqa8 wrote

I think they’re repulsive, and a lot of the time that’s what it’s supposed to make you feel; revulsion. Given how little there is of it, and that it rarely lingers, it didn’t feel gratuitous to me. But to each their own.

1

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6iornc wrote

Have you seen todays filmmakers? It’s really not a low bar when most of them can’t even do that

0

gee_gra t1_j6iq1ep wrote

>todays filmmakers

That's pretty fuckin vague pal hahaha, who in particular has earned your emnity? I'd also say there's plenty of directors who can get actors to act and can utilise their budget well

2

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6itq4s wrote

I would say most of them aren’t good lately. I can name plenty of names. Richard Linklater, Jennifer Kent, Rian Johnson, Ryan Coogler ever since Disney bought him, Martin McDonagh, Pablo Larrain, David Lowery, Julia Ducournau, Sean Baker, Chloe Zhao, Alice Wu, list goes on and on

These new filmmakers are shit. The Safdies and Zahler are maybe some of the few ones that have talent.

−2

gee_gra t1_j6ivyij wrote

I think this is just a matter of taste cuz you've listed some fucking terrific filmmakers imho hahah

7

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_j6jhocd wrote

Of course it’s a matter of taste. But you can’t have it both ways. He named a bunch of action directors as being very poor, you counter many of them are really good, while also arguing the bar is low. That’s counter intuitive.

−3

gee_gra t1_j6jiiw6 wrote

Well, he named one person who you could contend is an action director with Coogler. I'm not sure what you mean by "it's counter intuitive" — most of those directors have gotten good performances from their actors and seem to have handled their budgets well, they've crossed that low bar, and managed to make good films while doing it.

I'll also add that the guy I responded to seems to be some kinda lunatic so there's no much to be mined there

1

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_j6jjbn6 wrote

I’m not sure I’d agree many of them handle their budgets well, although they certainly have bigger ones, and I’ve seen plenty of weak performances in their catalogues, but I think we’re just going to have to politely accept we see this differently.

1

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6inbk4 wrote

You’re delusional if that’s all you reduce his works down to. He crafts ambiguously layered characters very well. Most hacks in Hollywood can only think of protagonists in a black or white mindset and spell it out for you but Zahler crafts very morally ambiguous themes in his work and can directly make you uncomfortable in the protagonists he expects you to watch because he doesn’t make it easy for the audience to see his characters as good or bad. Many of the best scenes in his movies are just pure dialogue moments as well.

Dragged Across Concrete was legitimately Tarantino level writing with the large cast of multilayered characters and most of the film has no action so it’s straight up ignorant to say all Zahler does is make “intensely violent” movies.

−2

Sammyd1108 t1_j6iscjx wrote

Dragged Across Concrete was good, but the fact that you’re comparing the writing to a Tarantino film is laughable.

5

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6it6lm wrote

It’s better than quite a few Tarantino films so it’s really not laughable at all

0

Sammyd1108 t1_j6itnyp wrote

There’s not a single Tarantino film it’s better than, even Death Proof, lol.

If anything, a lot of his writing comes off as a slight knock off version of a Tarantino film. You seem to view Zahler much better than he actually is. He’s a good filmmaker, but that’s it. The only reason he gets mentioned so much on here cause of how violent his films are.

Dragged Across Concrete isn’t even his best movie, Bone Tomahawk is.

4

RolloTonyBrownTown t1_j6jihc9 wrote

> He’s a good filmmaker, but that’s it.

Hes also a good author, has written several novels that are great reads.

3

Sammyd1108 t1_j6jin9a wrote

I haven’t read any of his books, so I can’t comment on that.

1

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6itxdt wrote

I think you view Zahler much lower than he is. I’d take Concrete over any Tarantino film besides Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Basterds and Jackie Brown

And Concrete is his best film. The best written and most intricately structured one. Bone Tomahawk is his worst

−2

Sammyd1108 t1_j6iu81q wrote

That’s wild to me, but everyone has their own opinions. I’d rather watch any Tarantino film than DAC any day of the week.

Concrete is a pretty slow movie honestly. I feel like his movies have dipped in quality with each one he’s released.

3

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6iuqz5 wrote

I don’t mind slow. Plenty of my favorite movies oat are slow. Silence is maybe top 3 Scorsese for me and it’s one of his slowest films as well.

Concrete is slow but it’s packed with substance and incredible dialogue and character moments. I don’t think another writer/filmmaker has crafted such a great world in the crime genre as Zahler since arguably Michael Mann did for Miami Vice.

2

Sammyd1108 t1_j6ivv2u wrote

Slow doesn’t bother me at all, Terrence Malik is one of my favorite filmmakers, but I guess I just didn’t see what you saw in Dragged Across Concrete.

I love crime movies, but that one didn’t do anything for me. All of his movies have had a B movie feel to them, and I feel like that worked great with Bone Tomahawk since it was partly a horror film, but it doesn’t work as well with crime films.

Silence is such a good movie though, but I have no desire to ever watch it again, lol. Actually it’s similar to Malik’s most recent film. They’re both great, but because of how long and the subject matter, I don’t feel the need to watch them again.

2

SwimmingLaddersWings t1_j6j8uxt wrote

I got nothing against B movies. Shit Terrifier 2 was better than any of the acclaimed horror movies last year like Barbarian or Smile. I don’t mind Zahler having that B movie quality because his writing and worldbuilding is better than practically any studio director working today.

And I love Malick as well, particularly his 2000s era. The new world and Thin Red Line are two of my favorite movies oat. I don’t mind rewatching slower and longer movies but in general I’m not much into rewatching movies like I used to. There’s just so much new stuff to always watch.

1