Sentences with phrase «as auteurist»

As auteurist filmmakers rise in arthouse visibility and critical approbation, some succumb to «Bono - it is».

We may have inferred spurious behavioural similarities between Max Fischer, Royal Tennenbaum or Steve Zissou in the director himself — characters as an extension of the creator's personality, as the auteurists would have it — yet this latest work appears wholly obsessed with the mechanics and logistics of Anderson's experience writing and directing movies.

Not exact matches

Your defense of Bay's «auteurist» aesthetic sense - «a man who never outgrew directing Super Bowl commercials»; «Bay has a style - a weird one, certainly, a hybrid of a nose - picking jock and a slick ad man who shoots a can of Pepsi, a Chevy Camaro, and a leggy blonde with the same voyeur's eye, and his bizarre gallery of ethnic sounds, voices, and faces is not without precedent» - makes this movie sound about as appealing as... well, exactly the things you described.

At the risk of further estranging myself from De Palma geeks, I must admit I rather enjoyed watching a Body Double without Armond White guilt - tripping my subconscious — which is not to say that Looker circumvents an auteurist reading altogether, but the idiosyncrasies that betray it as «Crichtonian» (like a novelistic conceit that starts off each new act with a placard indicating the day of the week *) are less than venerable and thus hardly lend themselves to an apologia.

What steamed me back in 1977 was the prominence of the auteurist - trained movie brats — filmmakers like Benton, Peter Bogdanovich, Brian De Palma, John Milius, and Martin Scorsese — in relation to their models as well as their European counterparts.

It's interesting that the studio appears to have embraced the idea that this is an auteurist Star Wars, however — those same fans might see it as Disney passing the buck and take it as ironic validation.

I'm not the only one who regards it as Lewton's greatest film, and I assume the main reason for its neglect is auteurist thinking — only directors are seen as auteurs — and the absence of stars.

Film critic A.O. Scott, in his New York Times review, somewhat (but not entirely) jokingly referred to this new film as an example of a kind of auteurist cinema, in that the aesthetic clearly reflects the vision of one man, director Michael Bay (who also directed the previous three films).

From Joseph Kosinski's Oblivion, a derivative film about derivatives, to the more or less solid auteurist permutations of the Mission: Impossible franchise, the results have varied, but Cruise's reputation as the sort of star who can get moderately interesting pulp bankrolled and realized by moderately interesting talents has deservedly persisted.

Perhaps all would be forgiven if M: i: III were competently - directed (while M: I - 2 is one of the stupidest films ever made, as John Woo is one of the best action directors of the past twenty - five years, damn if it's not beautiful, coherent, auteurist stupidity), but it's a glassy - eyed, dead thing complete with superfluous flashbacks to events we don't care about involving characters we don't recognize, an interminable party sequence in which Cruise trots out his smile like it was a weathered, beaten - down trophy wife, and a smug, self - congratulatory conclusion full of high - fives, victory arms, and shit - eating grins.

For a filmmaker's greatest work — or second greatest, seeing as we've set ourselves the impossible task of ranking these films — it might be expected that said film stand as a complete auteurist statement, one undeniably marked with the stamp of its author.

Not least Paul Schrader, whose particular brand of nihilism deserves equal credit to his director — whether you read John Ford's The Searchers or Robert Bresson's Pickpocket as the film's foremost influence depends on which auteurist lens you favour.

That Haneke has been able to conquer all before him with two very different films, neither of which will go down as highpoints in his career, seems only to confirm the widespread notion that he is head and shoulders above every other filmmaker working in auteurist cinema at present.

Witches (1990), based on a Roald Dahl novel (Anjelica Huston's witch has done as much damage to impressionable young minds as Jenny Agutter's skinny dipping in Walkabout), is one of the strangest children's films ever made, but it managed to connect with both its intended audience and armchair auteurists.

Maybe there's enough of a Gray hardcore out there to get the same auteurist votes as Haneke or Malick in recent years, but without the distributor support, it's a longer shot, though might figure in to some degree if voting were being held now.

It's a noble effort — and one worth a look for the super serious film buffs, as outsize auteurist projects of this scale are, indeed, rare events — but something is amiss when I come away with more to chew on about what guided the filmmaker's technique than what drove the title subject.

The artists represented here used moving images as an extension or counterpart to their photographic work to develop personal and auteurist storytelling.