That Movie Nerd totally bro. Should’ve put that in there.

Villeneuve, Fincher

Bong

True lol these directors make consistently good movies.but the best movies are always made by some underdog directors

I put them under the pretentious or classic only categories

Hahaha love that type. I liked back when you’d judge movies based on the dvd or vhs covers rather than the rotten tomatoes score. That was the best era of watching films imo.

saw the poster of only god forgives right after watching and loving drive. I absolutely hated it.

Same.

That really depends on what you mean by "golden age", though. For example, the Golden Age of Hollywood is generally thought to have ended sometime in the sixties, with the decline of the studio system. However, that in turn led to a new era, American New Wave, in the late sixties and early seventies, which resulted in most of what we now consider the "greatest movies ever made" (Godfather, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Chinatown, French Connection, etc)- the age of Coppola, Scorsese, Lumet, Polanski, Allen, Bogdanovich, Cassavetes, etc. I've never heard of this period being referred to as a "golden age", however, even though it was arguably the most creative and influential period in the history of American cinema, and the seventies usually tie with the thirties as the best ever decade for movies. I can definitely see your point in ending it at the eighties, because by and large the eighties was a terrible time for cinema (that doesn't mean that a lot of great movies weren't made of course, but so much of the output was safe, bland studio rubbish much like today). However, I would argue that the nineties signalled a turnaround that lasted until the mid-00s at least; they were essentially the seventies part 2, seeing once again a rise of anarchic film school nerds beating out the big, boring studios for audience attention thanks to their originality and ability to film on a tight budget. This was the age of the indie gods like Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Fincher, Anderson (both PT and Wes), Linklater, etc, and what I would argue was the most creative and influential decade in cinema history after the invention of the medium itself and the seventies. So while we can definitely agree that there have been better and worse decades for cinema over the years (with the fifties, the eighties and the mid-2010s-early 2020s generally being regarded as among the worst and the thirties, the seventies and the nineties generally being regarded as among the best), I'm not sure how objective pointing to a specific "golden age" in filmmaking can ever be, really.

NIReviews I totally should’ve! I’m definitely and everything guy too. I don’t like limits haha.

@@MasMashFilms yeah. I feel like putting categories really limits things. Of course I have a taste for a specific genre or director (becuase I'm human being with a certain taste) I love the thriller genre and love Christopher nolan. But I don't mind watching something like There Will Be Blood because it's also amazing.

Me with Jordan Peele movies lol

Please recommend some top Screenplayed underrated movies

​@@Mr_RXB wings of desire (1987), thief (1981), the man from earth (2007), the fall (2006)

I agree completely. Even when it comes to categories I know I have no interest in or downright hate (sci-fi, musicals, romcoms) if a movie comes along that looks to be in on of those categories but also looks genuinely good or interesting I'll definitely give it a try. I remember as a teenager I was only into dark comedy, crime, and horror, and while those are still probably my favourite genres I'm so glad I was able to see past genre snobbery and discover some of the best movies I never would have come across otherwise. International cinema was a particular eye-opener, 10 years ago I was definitely one of those awful "I don't do subtitles" people- so glad I ended up getting past that and discovering Spanish, Italian, French, German, Swedish, Japanese, Korean, Russian, etc cinema.

Same bro

what would you consider a good film?

@@tatling a movie with a story( I don't want to say neither easy nor difficult. But at the end of the day anyone should be able to understand that story), which eventually tries to make a point about something/ has a message to deliver (sometimes it can be for more than one thing), while keeping the viewer at the edge of their seat because of the emotions it brings out.

I think you have a point up to a certain extent, namely that that is indeed the reason why some people (the "pretentious cinephiles") like those movies, or rather pretend to. But to reduce all movies that don't have a traditional plot and place more importance on wider philosophical or political concepts than on character development, entertainment, story momentum or any of the other things that are usually important to more traditionally structured movies as "meretricious" and serving "no purpose" is ridiculous. Essentially what you're doing there is making an objective statement about the purpose of art, which is one of the most subjective topics there is. Did I get the same level of entertainment and edge-of-your-seat thrills out of watching Tarkovsky's Stalker as I did watching Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1? No, of course not. Did Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1 have me entranced with its haunting cinematography, leave me thinking about it for hours afterwards, and make me have to revisit my firm stance on the pointlessness of belief and faith? No, of course not. My point is, saying that a Tarkovsky or Bergman or Fellini movie is try-hard pretentious bullshit is as silly as saying that the new Mission Impossible movie is lowbrow crap for children. Personally, I get a lot out of both. And I equally respect someone who gets nothing out of either. Art is fundamentally subjective (for example of the list you provided Stalker and 2001 are two of my favourite movies while I thought Blow Up was one of the most boring and pointless movies I've ever watched)- just because you personally didn't get anything out of a movie, doesn't mean no-one did. That's not denying that there are people out there who pretend to like them out of pretentiousness. But to suggest that the existence of these people somehow de-legitimises the movies they go on about is as silly as to suggest that the existence of the film bro somehow de-legitimises American Psycho, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, etc. Attack the person, not the art itself. At the end of the day there's a reason why many of the films and directors that fit the category you outline are widely considered to be the greatest in the business. If it really was all an emperor's-new-clothes type scenario they would not have stood the test of time, even if they were popular among snobbish critics on release.

There is no true cinephile and this cake off as kinda pretentious in my opinion

I know, I know. 🤦‍♂️ hindsight 20/20 haha

"80 is da best everding else sacks"

Thanks for being such a kind human. 🙂

@@MasMashFilms oh honey darling

Classic Porn?

I definitely should’ve said modern classics.

Kind of depends on your criteria, really. For example, Taxi Driver was released one year after Jaws, and most people would consider that a "classic". Then others would argue that anything made post-Hollywood Golden Age (ie post about 1965) couldn't really be considered a "classic", while to someone born in the 21st century Pulp Fiction is a "classic". Hell, I'm sure even Dark Knight or Whiplash are now considered classics in some circles. The dictionary definition of "classic" is "judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind". The problem is, "a period of time" is kind of vague and subjective. Since the 80s and 90s were now 30-40 years ago I'd argue that movies from that era could now safely be considered "classics" (I mean, was Gone With The Wind really not considered a classic back in the early 80s?), but that's just me. That's the fundamental problem with trying to define art with such subjective terms like "classic", really. My own criteria would be around 10-20 years or so, with anything more contemporary than that being considered a "modern classic", but that's just me. But really any term like that has to be open to interpretation, since it is so subjective.

Simple, really. Most people outside of boring movie nerds (like me) don't really give a shit about cinema as an artform, about creative integrity, originality, etc. If they see an advert for a new movie from an IP they recognise, they will go and see it. And fair enough too, really. If they really don't care about movies and are just going to be mindlessly entertained for a couple of hours, why shouldn't they hand over their money? Me for example, I really don't care about food. I enjoy eating, but I'm just as happy with a kebab from my local all-night grill as I am with a wagyu steak and foie gras from Fouquet's. I'm sure to foodie nerds this is absolutely horrific, but since I'm not one I don't care. As someone who is massively into cinema, it definitely hurts me to see people queuing up for the latest Marvel/Star Wars crapfest and missing out on genuinely great indie projects as much as I'm sure it would hurt Jamie Oliver to see me tucking into a pizza with fries on it (yep, I have actually done that- while in Italy no less- and I'm not even ashamed). But that's kind of my problem, not theirs. The real reason to blame for the current wave of bland, unimaginative and lazy sequels/remakes is the studio system itself, not the audience. Movies are just way to damn expensive to make these days, which means no studio executive in their right mind is going to take a risk on a brand new idea that might flop when they know that by simply filming a few CGI lightsaber fights and calling it "Star Wars Episode 950" they can guarantee box office returns. So until the new wave of indie filmmakers start giving the big studios a run for their money again as they did in the 70s and 90s (which tbf is already definitely starting to happen with the rise of studios like A24), we're kind of stuck with the situation, really🤷‍♂