Who cares?
Like, what's the point? A documentary on a small film that only a handful of people saw, myself included, or liked? Help?
shareJust because it's a small film, why does that make it less interesting than a large one.
It might even be more relevant to new directors who want to see that sort of thing.
WHO CARES!
shareYeah seriously. Who *beep* cares first off, and secondly it's just plain pretentious.
shareSo any documentary about a filmmaker is pretentious? Get real dude.
Just because you don't care doesn't mean nobody else will
everything about him and his movies are evidence of his pretentious nature.
shareAgreed. Drive was ruined (or at least seriously compromised) by the director's choice of in-your-face music and general pretentiousness. Only God Forgives was one big ego trip and sucked more than anything that has ever sucked before. And now we have a wifey who must put her husband in the spotlight (or herself, or whatever), pathetically dropping his name in the title.
Indeed. Who cares? The director's career is over, if he ever had one.
Listen it's cool if you're into this for whatever reason, but I don't think that I'm not already "getting real", considering this is my opinion. Yes, it comes off a little pretentious. Why? Exactly what about this "documentary"(making of?) of a guy directing a *beep* movie would peak your interest? I guess it's purely for fanboys, which is fine, but it's still pretentious. The director/creators would have to assume that we all are so interested in seeing a "mastermind" working his craft. I say mastermind because I'm under the assumption that since this guy made Drive and a few other overrated movies, he thinks everyone wants to see him "unhooked" or "real". It assumes that people want or would want to see what goes on in someone's life, all while doing something that thousands of others do without some kind of documentary on how they did it. What even remotely interesting or significant thing do you think is going to happen in the 58 minute runtime?(the runtime also supports my case, it's not even an hour for god's sake) nothing. Except for the expected tribulation of getting his crappy movie made. The truth is, unless there is a major selling point to this "story" that there apparently is behind the making of Only God Forgives, this is a cheap attempt at getting attention, basically by shouting "Hey! look at me!!!!!"
shareOf course you can have you opinion. But you are misinformed about most of the information you presented, which is what formed said opinion.
1. This is NOT about the making of Only God Forgives, its a documentary about the director that happened to be made during the filming of said movie. Would you not watch a documentary about Kubrick that just happened to be filmed during Barry Lyndon or Lolita, just because those aren't his best films? Or a Scorsese doc filmed during kundun or departed? the doc is about the director and not the film, and if you enjoy that director, when it was made or during what film should be irrelevant. Especially if the doc IS NOT about that film.
2. It was directed by his wife, who essentially was just filming for fun/out of boredom, and it eventually became this documentary. NWR had nothing to do with its production, which essentially removes the pretentious possibilities. In order to be pretentious he would have had to make it himself, which he didn't. At all..
3. The creators were correct then,.since me and obviously quite a few other people want to see the NWR and his craft. Like i said, just because you don't want to see this doesn't mean others don't.
4. Jodorowsky. That alone should be enough for any film buff, he's a legend, like 90 years old, and very rarely does stuff like this. And anyone who's ever heard Jodorowsky speak knows he's a mad genius with an almost metaphysical way with words, and I'm really interested to hear his take on NWR, especially considering NWR is the closest directorial match for Jodorowsky I've ever seen.
"a documentary about the director that happened to be made during the filming of said movie"
Still hugely pretentious. He is not the Dalai Lama, he is not a great athlete preparing for and winning a world record, he is a mediocre director and the movie bombed big time (creatively and commercially).
"directed by his wife, who essentially was just filming for fun/out of boredom,.."
Let's all see what a bored wife has to offer! It must be great, right? This is clearly NOT going to be wasting anyone's time.
And for the record, IMO, Drive is one of his weakest films. It got hyped as an action chase movie, people went to see it and didn't really know what they just watched, since it really had no action or much of a chase, but told everyone they loved it because it was a little artsy, had Ryan Gosling, and because they wanted to be cool. But in actuality, the editing, cinematography (with afew exceptions) the script, acting, the pacing and the story are substantially sub par compared to his other films. The only great moments.from drive were the amazing shots of LA at night (which Nightcrawler ate up and spit out), the score, and the tone of the film.
sharedrive is one of his weakest? have you seen valhalla?
the script, acting, the pacing and the story are substantially sub par compared to his other films
the script, pacing and story are sub par in essentially everything he has ever made. he can't write a script nor direct himself out of a box.
the only thing saving him from total cinema mediocrity is his ability to attract notable actors for leads. share
Yes I've seen all his films many times. Valhalla was amazing.. The pacing is near perfect, the tone is unique, almost Kubrickian, the cinematography is gorgeous. As for script, the point of making a film (traditionally) is to tell a story through moving images, the dialogue/script should not be a relevant factor, although most films now require substantial dialogue because its lacking in every other department.
If you are a really good film maker, and can master all traditional aspects of a film, you don't need dialogue to make your film good
This is what NWR is trying to do, and IMO he is succeeding in spades. Why do you think most of his films have such sparse dialogue? You think its because he's a bad writer? No! Its because he is using a traditional method of storytelling that most directors don't use anymore. Use Only God Forgives as an example... I haven't seen a movie as perfectly framed and as uniquely lit since Eyes Wide Shut. Every shot in the film could be its own painting. Its telling the sorry through visuals, but everyone just says "its boring" because there's no talking. Well its far from boring if you enjoy the art of film making, which NWR has just about perfected.
Drive on the other hand, is his first major foray into Hollywood style film making, and he tried to combine visual storytelling with other more popular aspects of current Hollywood movies.
And for the record, the only notable actor he's been able to get is Gosling, which is because they became good friends. This is also partly why Drive is so weak..... He got caught up with Hollywood and a big name star, and tried to combine his visual sense with the Hollywood machine, and it fell flat.
Every other film he's done (fear x being the other exception) is so full of heart that they just ooze off the screen. Like its own organic entity. There are not many living directors like him.
Valhalla was amazing.. The pacing is near perfectgood thing i wasn't drinking anything when i read that because it would be all over my keyboard right now.
despite your assumptions about what other people may or may not like about movies, lack of dialogue isn't what makes his story telling weak. plenty of directors are still effective story tellers without dialogue. nwr doesn't have a clue when it comes to figuring out how to present a story.
you compare him to kubrick, kubrick told stories that could be read without dialogue. nwr does not.
look, i get it. nwr could spill a coffee and you'd probably call it art.
And for the record, the only notable actor he's been able to get is Goslingwow, big call. you saying Mads Mikkelsen, Tom Hardy and John Turturro aren't notable actors? keanu reeves on his next film?
There are not many living directors like him.there are many like him, most of them are still in film school. share
The fact that you're so violently rude with your opinions really drains them of meaning for me. It sounds like you do have some interesting things to say, but without any manners, it all comes across as shouty and overbearing.
shareI think they mean self-indulgent. I mean, if this was about Scorsese or Kubrick I would understand. This documentary is unnecessary at most.
More notable directors like Christopher Nolan or Kathryn Bigelow.
"im beautiful your not" - me
"you're* " - you
its the nwr way, constantly self aggrandizing.
shareIt's not that its a small film, it's just a small film that no one really thought all that much of and not many even know the director. Yknow, like, if it was a documentary on Locke or something, that I can see as having at least a purpose to exist.
share