Well he has a perfect filmography
-
!!!deleted!!! (63057267) — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 05:27 PM)
The man is one of the biggest and most shameless thieves in cinema history. BOOGIE NIGHTS owes far too much to Scorsese and Altman to be taken seriously. MAGNOLIA is a superficial rip-of2000f of Altman's NASHVILLE and especially SHORT CUTS. I could go on, but neither Anderson - or you - are worth the time. If you think he's a genius or a great artist, you're the one with the low I.Q.
-
rallyinthestreets — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 05:36 AM)
Actually, you couldn't go on, and every great filmmaker takes influence from other artists especially early in their career.
And isn't it funny that Scorsese and Altman both have the utmost respect for PTA (as do Coppola, Spielberg, Bergman, etc)? I guess they all must have low IQs, and you're the genius. Lmao. -
!!!deleted!!! (63057267) — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 10:04 AM)
You'll need to prove that the late Bergman was impressed by Anderson's work, and you'll need to do so immediately. Also, you shouldn't attempt to ridicule someone's intelligence level, only to follow it with "lmao".
-
rallyinthestreets — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 05:24 PM)
Internet lingo is not representative of intelligence. You remind me of a quote from Stephen Fry who sagely noted that the least intelligent people are the ones who police language. You've already been exposed as being utterly clueless. All of the other directors which you and I previously mentioned have been effusive in their praise of PTA. Bergman had praise for Magnolia in an interview he gave late in his life:
http://m.imdb.com/board/20000005/quotes -
!!!deleted!!! (63057267) — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 05:38 PM)
"You've already been exposed as being utterly clueless."
Sorry, but you've failed in your quest to accomplish that. However, one thing is painfully clear: You've been exposed as having lousy taste in cinema.
Regarding Bergman's praise of MAGNOLIA: Dementia is a sad thing, as further evidenced by the horrendously poor SARABAND. Also, it's obvious that he wasn't up on his Altman. Neither are you, plainly.
Oh, and by the way: Anderson is laughing at you, as you own all of his turds on Blu-Ray and you sing his praises so loudly that he's getting a fortune's worth of free advertising for what he likely knows are paper-thin non-events that he clumsily slopped onto celluloid. Hell, I'm laughing right along with him. Sucker. -
rallyinthestreets — 9 years ago(June 01, 2016 05:43 PM)
Nothing which you said was true, but all of it was tinged with an innate sadness, unable to admit even when you're wrong. I guess you'll have to learn the lessons of Saraband the hard way, in old age after all your cards have already been played.
Take care. -
!!!deleted!!! (63057267) — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 10:07 AM)
Yeah, I'll think on that. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest catching up on the great movies campaign of yesteryear that you so obviously missed. You're sorely in need of Cassavetes, Altman (clearly), Bergman (from '61 to '82, as you hold SARABAND in high esteem) and the whole of Buuel's output. If you survive it'll serve as the dawn of your much-needed education in film. Good luck with those movies, thinker. Something tells me you'll need it.
-
rallyinthestreets — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 04:21 PM)
Altman was a big fan of PTA's work, a fact which you've conspicuously ignored. Your criticisms of Saraband and late-career Bergman were facile and spurious (a running theme of yours so far), and that's coming from someone who's not even a huge fan of that film. Cassavetes and Buuel are practically mainstream in the arthouse realm, and I have seen much of their work, so try again.
-
!!!deleted!!! (63057267) — 9 years ago(June 07, 2016 11:23 AM)
Try again? Nah, you're too far gone. Besides, Altman was a known egomaniac, so of course he was going to champion anyone who aped his work. He did the same for Alan Rudolph.
By the way, I find it odd that you could like Bunuel and Cassavetes yet still be an Anderson fan. Something tells me you don't understand their films. Tell the truth: You hold Anderson in higher regard than them, don't you? -
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(June 01, 2016 02:30 AM)
and every great filmmaker takes influence from other artists especially early in their career.
True enough. But the difference is that the artists that influence the truly great filmmakers are all outside the realm of film itself, thus their works still seem fresh when their influences are ground through a different medium.
Hence Ridley Scott took his influence from graphic artist Jean Moebius Giraud and managed to create Blade Runner.
Francis Ford Coppola took his influence from Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness and managed to create Apocalypse Now.
Both feel original and fresh, despite the fact that nobody denies the influence of other underlying artists.
That is why, as long as you go back to Shelley's original novel (as opposed to Universal's/Karloff's film), you can keep remaking Frankenstien time and time again and still have it seem fresh and original on some level at least. But once you show a monster with Karloff's face and electric bolts in his neck, or have a war scene where helicopters are blasting "Ride of the Valkyries", you will say to yourself "I've already seen this f-ing film before, only it was much better the first time around."
Paul Thomas Anderson took influence from Goodfellas (with Raging Bull thrown in at the end) and made a copy of Scorsese's film only 7 short years after the fact, which is why Boogie Nights feels like such a shallow, juvenile retread when compared to Goodfellas, and not even in the same league as a Blade Runner or Apocalypse.
He then took a carbon copy of Nashville and Short Cuts and spat out Magnolia, which once again, is a pale imitation of the original laden with cartoonish characters and ridiculous dialogue ("Whaaaa! I have so much love to give! I just don't know where to put it!" This is what a man-child actually interprets as meaningful, emotional sentiment.)
But hey, Boogie Nights admittedly managed to fulfill the dreams of PTA's adolescent fan base in allowing them to consider porn more mainstream without guilt - hence they will always consider him their hero. -
SherlockVonEinstein — 9 years ago(September 04, 2016 12:14 AM)
I don't think this argument holds much water, because Scorsesefor examplehas by his own admission taken a lot from Ozu, Kurosawa, etc That's what artists do. They build on what's already been done. As Godard once said, it doesn't matter where ideas come from, it matters where you take them.
-
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 01:58 PM)
Get used to it cinesicko. Any criticism of their "auteur" hero sparks immediate pushback by the PTA mob.
Standard responses:- "You're just a troll!"
- "How many films have YOU made? You haven't done anything significant in your life."
- "Go back to watching Transformers and comic book movies!"
- "Get a life. Why do you waste so much time on these boards? Go outside or read a book."
They love PTA too much because they too are film students at some level with nothing to say other than a desire to retread the same territory of films they grew up with. And they figure that if a fraud like Anderson can get away with it and become successful, then maybe they can too.
So get used to the bullying and groupthink by a bunch of adolescents who can't distinguish a shallow cop2000y of a profound work from the real thing.
-
!!!deleted!!! (63057267) — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 05:50 PM)
Hey PRETENTIOUSANDERSON: Ever see McCABE & MRS. MILLER? Now that's a great movie. It's finally coming out on Blu-Ray, from Criterion no less. Funny how Anderson stole from it for INHERENT VICE. It's like the guy can't help himself, like it's a compulsion or an addiction. I mean, he stole from Altman's Western for his private eye piece. Where is shame? I hate thieves who fob themselves off as artists of weight.
-
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(June 01, 2016 03:54 PM)
I admittedly didn't make any McCabe connections when I suffered through Inherent Vice, thought its been quite a while since I revisited McCabe.
I DO recall thinking he obviously ripped off Altman's MASH with recreation of the Last Supper scene (which Altman had already done in MASH, though most PTA fandorks are ignorant of that fact).
Then of course there is the fact that it invites comparisons with Lebowski and The Long Goodbye based on its subject matter and setting alone. (The Lebowski retread factor has to be laid at the feet of Pynchon to begin with. He obviously stole the broad conceit of the stoner detective from that film and just infused it with his set of pop culture references. Just as Anderson has nothing of substance to say beyond wanting to be considered a great director, Pynchon has nothing substantive to say beyond wanting to be considered to a great writer, so he too liberally borrows from others and tries to hide that fact with overt, self-conscious overly-wordy writing styles. He is the epitome of writing strictly for writing's sake, rather than offering stories of real substance or economy. No wonder Anderson gravitates towards his work. They both share the same traits.)