4 ms·
I share your conclusion that great artists should strive for taking risks and leave uneven ouvre behind them. But are Kubrick and Kurosawa good examples of unev
by plastic3169 3y ago
I share your conclusion that great artists should strive for taking risks and leave uneven ouvre behind them. But are Kubrick and Kurosawa good examples of uneven directors? It’s hard to measure and maybe their legend status muddles the ratings but casually glancing even their bad films are quite highly rated and this matches my feeling of them.
I feel Scotts work is way more all over the place and the great films in there feel more like the outliers. It’s all very subjective though and I have not seen everything these people have made.
- gumby 3y agoHw about “Ran” or “Barry Lyndon?”
- phlakaton 3y agoRan is excellent. Next question. :-)
- tetromino_ 3y agoBarry Lyndon is amazing! The magical quality of the lighting, the music, lady Lyndon's expression at the end. Probably one of my all time favorite films.
- gumby 3y agoTerrible choice of novel too. Long and boring in print — I suppose one could say the film was faithful to the source material in that regard. Thackeray would have been a far better choice to cover the same issue. It was a self-indulgent film.
- OfSanguineFire 3y agoRan is not only highly regarded in Kurosawa's output, it regularly pops up on lists of greatest films of all time. When people speak of Kurosawa's weaker films, they generally mean Dodeskaden and Scandal, and then perhaps lesser-known efforts like The Quiet Duel and Derzu Uzala.