but it's just an average one because it does not have any cinematic artistry. If Park, Chan Wook or Christopher Nolan took this movie, it would have been a classic. I see so much potential. A great screenplay given away to an average director. Bad luck.
sharehahahahahahahahaha....wait, I need a break...okay...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You do realize that it isn't supposed to be a blockbuster a la Nolan, right? It is supposed to be unsettling and challenging. It achieves its goal. Plus, why would a writer/director give his own script to another director if it is clearly a film tailor-made for the writer/director? Haneke has a more significant directoral voice than your two examples. He wouldn't want to water the film down with Hollywood bulljivin' as either of those two would.
Park Chan Wook "lacks directoral voice?"
Uhhhhhhhh, I agree that Haneke is more suited to direct his own screenplay that he wrote with all intention of directing it, but there's no need to downplay Park, who is inarguably a great director, and in my own opinion better than Haneke.
It's not over, everybody betrayed me! I'm fed up with this world!
Paul Thomas Anderson would have brought more to it.
Park Chan Wook "lacks directoral voice?", he then goes on to make The Handmaiden in 2016.
Now who's laughing?
A great screenplay given away to an average director.The screenplay was written by the director, who is far from average. Haneke's adaptation of the book was amazing as was his direction of Huppert as Erika.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
what a great post.
could have been a great movie? It is a terribley great movie.
Michael Haneke isn't average director. He has deep insight and cinematic expressiveness about sickly inner side of humans and distorted relationships. He's actually one of best filmmakers alive IMO.
IMDB Boards always make me surprise.
His direction of the performers was great, maybe it would have been better with a different cinematographer. I thought it was fine though.
shareHe is a master, more gifted than any director I know of today.
His direction is intentionally cold and rigid, he wants the viewer to feel uncomfortable. As opposed to most directors, every scene has the impact he wants it to have. He is in total control. He manipulates the audience to no end, without the use of a soundtrack, which is quite an achievement if you ask me. You have to see some old films by Bresson, then you'll understand better.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
Yes he is a master. The film is so picture perfect. You just have to sit back, well you don't have to but I did, and marvel at his directorial choices. There's always a certain point in a film too when I'm committed and then began waiting with bated breath for the Director to make the inevitable "mistake" or misstep, but the Director never wavered, never flinched.
And it's nice to gain complete confidence in a Director and be able to comfortably sit back and enjoy a film, which I did in this movie half way through, that's not true at all actually, I held my breath to the very end, I thought the bastard would botch it, the ending, but he didn't, it was a stunning finish.
The most satisfying film I've seen this year besides Possession (1981).
Twitter @killakippa
What's so masterful about Haneke's direction? All he does is just shoot all his scenes in big long, master shots. That's pretty much what I did back when I had no concept of coverage. LOL
shareWait wait wait. Haneke is an amazing director but I found the script to be rather weak (he's written that but writing is not directing). I had my problems with the film but it isn't really the direction.
---
You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?
I think people are failing to see the sarcasm in this post.
https://goo.gl/wbyNk3
LOL! People you are feeding into a troll post. Park, Chan Wook or Christopher Nolan are all mediocre directors at best who know how to appease the less intelligent of our species out there
share