On the actor to director front: I like Clint Eastwoods directorial choices, even if I don’t like all of his films – A Perfect World is fab, and Unforgiven is a legitimate classic, while Bird is low-key intimate. I love Bill Murray’s only directed film: Quick Change. Todd Field, I quite like and respect, particularly Little Children (yet he is funny and loose in EYES WIDE SHUT). Heck even George Clooney’s directing career is interesting. I like Chaplin, Keaton and Jacques Tati. I’ve liked the few films directed by Dennis Hopper, Christopher Guest and yes, I really dug Apocalypto. I find The Postman strangely watchable, and Open Range is a pretty darn solid flick. Occasionally I can even make it though a penny marshall or danny devito movie. Robert DeNiro’s THE GOOD SHEPARD may suffer from pacing and acting problems, but it was a pretty stylishly directed film. I like Todd Luiso’s character work (particularly in High Fidelity and Snakes on A Plane) and I really dug Love Liza and look forward to what he does with Macbeth. On Shakespeare front, I like Kenneth Brannaugh’s assorted acting and directing gigs.

Ron Howard can go fuck himself though.

Isn’t the auteur theory in its death throes right now? Or at least not applicable to directors so much these days. Take Charlie Kaufman, hell take Nathan Fillion and Christopher Doyle. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with the auteur stuff.

Grand, Operatic artistic tapestry: Werner Herzog, Fritz Lang, Darren Aronofsky, Michaelangelo Antonionni, P.T. Anderson, Thomas Vinterberg, Leni Reifenstahl, Abel Gance, Francis Ford Coppola, David Lean, Billy Wilder, F.W. Murnau, Christopher Nolan, Shinya Tsuakmoto, Akira Kurosawa, Sergio Leone, Sergei Eisenstein, Guy Maddin, Nicholas Winding Refn, John Frankenheimer, Liliana Cavani, Joseph Losey, wkw, Gus Van Sant, George Miller, Nicholas Roeg and David Lynch.

Out.

But since we’re talking “visual language”, that doesn’t matter.

Nice guilt-by-association with Battlefield Earth. I’m sure you’re being honest about how you feel, but the fact that your brain has lumped these two movies together says more about you, than the merits of either. I think it’s the hollywood celebrity-going-auteur that bugs you, because it means that the auteur is becoming mainstream, and you will no longer seem as bright or interesting in social circles when talking about it, because regular people like an auteur movie as well. Wong Kar-Wai has nothing on Mel Gibson.

I feel like an idiot for misreading A spy thriller with THE spy thriller though, so I’m sorry for jumping at you. I was blinded by the anger you induce by praising glamourous, pretentious inanities like Master & Commander while shitting on the grand, operatic, artistic tapestry of something like Braveheart or Gladiator. I’ll take the 25seconds of Riefenstahl ripoff in Gladiator over any “we’re sailors so we sing at sea”-scene in Master & Commander.

Braveheart may have had some big battles, but ouch, the script is atrociously overbaked. The only major thing that Braveheart influenced in my book is Battlefield Earth. Yie.

What modern spy thriller genre is there? Because the newest James Bond movie copied his Bourne movies, he has now re-written a visual language? Bullshit Kurt, this is grandstanding.

I think it’s a much truer statement that Mel Gibson with Braveheart, led the way for all of the historical/fantasy epics that followed the next 10 years, culminating in The Lord of the Rings. How many of them copy the battle scenes in Braveheart? Which then itself copies, but in terms of contemporary re-writing of visual language (a phrase you’d expect from a person who has only seen films for acouple of years, and only films made within those years. Seriously Kurt, think alittle) Braveheart would be more worthy of the praise than Paul Greengrass.

United 93 is an awesome movie, but the Bourne movies are boring as hell. To me, watching a scene that is cutting every .3 seconds feels as fake as bad visual effects. I felt no more tense in Bournes bathroom fight in the 3rd movie, than I did when Optimus Prime fought Megatron.

If he delivers something along the lines of THE NEW WORLD or MASTER AND COMMANDER, then JOY, but for every couple of those fabulous films, you end up with Academy Award travesties like Gladiator and ***SHUDDER*** Braveheart.

That is nonsense, Kurt, as is your “theme park” comment, which you attribute to MTV having the scoop (c’mon MTV has been getting a lot of un-MTVish scoops lately, since they kicked up the gear at their movie blog and have connections to any celebrity or filmmaker they want).

I don’t understand what you are saying though. Do you only consider dramatic modern pieces worth watching and making? I’m just trying to understand the logic behind your comments here, Kurt. If there is talent behind and in front of the camera, shouldn’t that be enough to excite? It’s going to be a serious and historically-based look at the myth of piracy in the Caribbean. What isn’t exciting about that? This isn’t Walter Matthau’s Captain Red here.

What I love about these historically based period pieces or epics or what have you is the way they transport the audience somewhere else besides our 20th or 21st century world. It is the closest we can get to experiences what it was really like in a time that is so difficult for us to imagine. And it really fuels our imaginations. There is so much value to these kind of films, just as much as ANY other kind. Granted, I’m a history junkie and am a sucker for a well-made historical period pieces, but that is besides the point.

My god, there are some great historical period pieces out there. Becket. The Lion in Winter. Lawrence of Arabia. Braveheart. Kingdom of Heaven DC. Ben Hur. Spartacus. The New World. Dances With Wolves. Master & Commander. And yeah, even Gladiator. (Oddly, for being somebody that studies history, I have very little problem with historical inaccuracies and bending the truth within these kinds of film, as I take them more or less as historical fiction).

Just some random ramblings.

Haven’t seen Kingdom of Heaven (but I want to see the long Directors Cut at some point).

I probably immediately thought Themepark ride because the source here (and source imagery) is from MTV.

Historical Epics are not my thing, admittedly, and Greengrass is such a great contemporary director, it panis me to see him devote his time and energy to this.

Having said all that, stuff like MASTER & COMMANDER is golden.

Expensive adult historical epics typically fail at the box-office, I can see pressure being mounted to make this type of thing family-friendly.

If I’m wrong, I salute you for pointing out my stupidity.

sorry buddy, but there is a place for these kind of movies – these kind of movies that unlike traditional dramas – open up and stretch our imaginations and take us back to a time that we could otherwise never see or only see in badly staged retellings on the history channel.

yes, there is room (and a NEED) for these kind of movies in Hollywood (Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Henry V, etc) and i want talented people behind them. would you rather they give it to schmucks like Paul WS Anderson?

fuck your theme ride park comment. that isn’t even snobbery, kurt, it is stupidity.