What do you think?
Lots of people say that he's the new Orson Welles, perhaps better.
I think, definately yes.
I mean, he was 27 when he made "Boogie Nights". And look at this film! It's just such an amazing film, almost unbelievable that such a young director did this! Or "Magnolia", he was 29. Extremely complex and so fantastic.
What do you think will the people say in 30 years, when they hear the name Paul Thomas Anderson?
I think they will talk about him like cinephiles are now talking about Martin Scorsese. So?
I think it's too early to tell what people will say in 30 years. Who knows what will happen. He has only done 4 films this far. I think we need to wait maybe 10 years before we know how he'll be remebered.
Maybe he'll be diagnozed with lungcancer...Only one out of ten survives. :cry:
But I know mentioning PTA will always put a smile on my face.
Absolutely. And if he's not the new Orson Welles, he certainly the new Martin Scorsese. I think that if he keeps it up, he could eventually have as successful of a career as Scorsese. So far, he's doing great. "Boogie Nights" was his "Mean Streets" and "Magnolia" was his "Taxi Driver".
Quote from: mogwaihe's the new paul thomas anderson.
Beats cancer.
Why does everybody have to be the "next" somebody? Rediculous, except you Spike, you are the next ebeaman
Bleh. I get so sick of people comparing PTA to anyone, especially Martin Scorsese. First off, Scorsese is not that great a director (only Taxi Driver is worthy of note in my opinion; everything else he's done has been marginally accomplished at best). Second, PTA is his own person, and his body of work can't be compared to any one director because of its diversity. I've heard some people compare Hard Eight and Boogie Nights to Scorsese, Magnolia to Altman, and Punch-Drunk Love to Kubrick, but I really think they're stretching even though I can see why they say so. What PTA is developing is his own original unique style, that 20 years from now, we'll be identifying as vintage Anderson, and comparing new young punk directors to him. And there will be some people writing the same type of posts I've just written elaborating on how stupid it is to compare said "young punk" directors to Anderson. Plus, unlike Welles Anderson doesn't act. Double-bleh.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaBleh. I get so sick of people comparing PTA to anyone, especially Martin Scorsese. First off, Scorsese is not that great a director (only Taxi Driver is worthy of note in my opinion; everything else he's done has been marginally accomplished at best). Second, PTA is his own person, and his body of work can't be compared to any one director because of its diversity. I've heard some people compare Hard Eight and Boogie Nights to Scorsese, Magnolia to Altman, and Punch-Drunk Love to Kubrick, but I really think they're stretching even though I can see why they say so. What PTA is developing is his own original unique style, that 20 years from now, we'll be identifying as vintage Anderson, and comparing new young punk directors to him. And there will be some people writing the same type of posts I've just written elaborating on how stupid it is to compare said "young punk" directors to Anderson. Plus, unlike Welles Anderson doesn't act. Double-bleh.
i was really starting to like u onomato.
I agree with Onomatopoeia. I can't compare PTA to anyone that I can think of because PTA is distinct. I was talking to someone who said when they see a Scorsece flick, they know it's him. Personally, other than Taxi Driver, he dosen't seem to have a notable style. Aronofsky has a style that is notable. But who in the hell could you compare him to?
David Lynch has a style, the list goes on. When you can compare a director with another, that means one (or maybe both of them) aren't very creative.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: OnomatopoeiaFirst off, Scorsese is not that great a director (only Taxi Driver is worthy of note in my opinion; everything else he's done has been marginally accomplished at best).
i was really starting to like u onomato.
Yeah, well, I figured that was an unpopular opinion to have around here, so let me explain it a little better:
Saw Gangs of New York in a theatre, enjoyed it, but felt it went on for too long, and should've ended with Bill killing DiCaprio's character. Plus, the fight scene was weak, and Scorsese tried to jam too much in to the end, resulting in mass chaos and confusion. Ultimately it makes for a passing movie that could've been much greater, especially with the time he put in to it. One would think maybe the material got stale.
Goodfellas, I loved first time through. Second time, I watched it with my bro, and realized how weak it was in certain parts. I agree with Kael ultimately; it's a good film, not a great one. It relies too much on narration, it drags at times, and at the end I think it falls apart (though I think some people like the end most).
Casino: Goodfellas in Las Vegas. I know some people balk at this, considering it is three hours long, and it does have a bit different story, but I just wish Scorsese would do more than just these same old gangster type stories. I know he's done comedies, but I haven't been able to see 'em. There were many memorable scenes in Casino, it at the same time made you want to go to Vegas and stay the hell away. It proved Sharon Stone could act, in certain parts. And Deniro and Pesci were great. But despite that, because they played similar characters in Goodfellas, despite the longer running time, it made this seem like "Goodfellas lite."
Haven't seen Raging Bull in full. Flipped through channels late and came across it on ESPN classic, and was bored by it. I know I need to see the whole thing. But I can't fathom this being the best film of the 80s when Ran exists.
The King(s?) of Comedy. Deniro again. Looks promising, but Kael had some scathing things to say about it.
So obviously, I've had minimal experience with Scorsese, and yes, I liked Taxi Driver very much, but obviously I do need to see more of his stuff. Like his comedies from the 70s and Bringing out the Dead.
Oh, and has anyone seen his film from NYU, The Big Shave? If you've seen Ghostboy's Looking for Love, it borrows heavily from that. Although, I don't know if Ghostboy intended it. Basically, a man shaves and cuts himself. A lot. And, well, it's supposed to be some sort of war protest type film, too. It, too, was very good.
So yeah, there you have it: how I feel on Scorsese in a nutshell.
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobAronofsky has a style that is notable. But who in the hell could you compare him to?
Kubrick for Requiem for a Dream (smacks of A Clockwork Orange), and Lynch for Pi (heard it smacks of Eraserhead; haven't gotten to see that yet to judge for myself). But Aronofsky said he wanted to get away from those visual tricks after he got that out of his system, so that's definitely a good thing.
Onomatopoeia, the way you feel about Scorsese is the way I feel about Robert Altman. But what about "Mean Streets", "Last Temptation" and "After Hours"???
Quote from: filmcriticOnomatopoeia, the way you feel about Scorsese is the way I feel about Robert Altman.
Indeed. I think Nashville is a pile of crap (another unpopular opinion, I know), but I love The Player and really admire Short Cuts, even though Magnolia is better. Altman has made a lot of clunkers, not the least of which is Gosford Park... bleh. But Ultraviolet and The Company look so good that if they deliver, I'll forgive him easily. He ebbs and flows like that.
Quote from: filmcriticBut what about "Mean Streets", "Last Temptation" and "After Hours"???
Haven't seen any of those. :( My resources are limited at the moment, and I'm away from my university library, and I have so many movies I want to see. Hopefully I'll be getting Netflix soon, so that'll help, and I'll definitely be putting those other Scorsese films at the top of the list.
You really should. After you see "Last Temptation" and "Mean Streets", you're opinion of Scorsese might really change quickly.
Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" is not a very good film. "Magnolia" did a much better job with balancing and executing stories going back and forth with each other than Altman. The ending also left me very unsatisfied. I guess I just don't think that Altman is a very artistic director, and only an okay storyteller.
<-
I don't think of directors who make good films early on in their careers in terms of "the next (insert great director)." I think of them as "directors whose careers to follow."
BTW, after seeing Boogie Nights, I thought PTA was 40 or 50 years old until I saw him on Late Night with Conan O' Brien and he was in his 20s. I expected someone like Jack Horner, but in better clothes.
it's tough to compare modern day film-makers to the pioneers because the industry and art form in question has changed so much since the early years. i think the comparisons between PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON and the likes of ALTMAN and SCORCESE are a little less prone to error because of this.
as much as i love PT and his work, i agree with kotte in that we need to wait quite a while before we can really evaluate his contribution to modern cinema. if he puts out a consistent series of shitty movies from now on, i think our desire to put him up on a pedestal will diminish somewhat. MAGNOLIA will still be an incredible film, but we won't be thinking of the director as another ORSON WELLES.
that being said, i'm hopeful that PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON will keep on keepin' on.
-ccb
The new Orson Wells, that's about the most stupid thing I have ever heard. How can you compare Wells' work with PTA?
I don't think he's the new Orson Welles....he's fucking PTA. He is what he is. I'm sure he doesn't want people thinking he's trying to be the next Welles, if anything he's probably saying I want people to say they want to be the next Paul Thomas Anderson. And that's that.
I think we should let whatever comes next decide the PTA legacy to decide if he's an "Orson Welles", but really he's just a good filmmaker, one of the same breed as who he is being compared to. He's done so well so young, I'm quite elated to see what he has ready for us next. And I also can't wait for a few years down the line when the PTA wannabes start comin' out the woodwork (some dipshit like me)
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaBleh. I get so sick of people comparing PTA to anyone, especially Martin Scorsese. First off, Scorsese is not that great a director (only Taxi Driver is worthy of note in my opinion; everything else he's done has been marginally accomplished at best). Second, PTA is his own person, and his body of work can't be compared to any one director because of its diversity. I've heard some people compare Hard Eight and Boogie Nights to Scorsese, Magnolia to Altman, and Punch-Drunk Love to Kubrick, but I really think they're stretching even though I can see why they say so. What PTA is developing is his own original unique style, that 20 years from now, we'll be identifying as vintage Anderson, and comparing new young punk directors to him. And there will be some people writing the same type of posts I've just written elaborating on how stupid it is to compare said "young punk" directors to Anderson. Plus, unlike Welles Anderson doesn't act. Double-bleh.
that's classic. you say that scorsese "is not that great a director" as if it's some kind of fact. then you admit that you haven't seen over half his films...probably even more. oh, but you saw part of raging bull on espn and you heard that kael didn't like king of comedy, so you that's probably good enough. when does your book on scorsese come out?
So you have to see all the movies by a director in order to have an opinion? Okay, so shut up about Solondz until you've unearthed Fear, Anxiety & Depression and Schatt's Last Shot. Or about Linklater until you've seen It's Impossible to Learn to Plow By Reading Books. Or about Spike Lee until you've seen Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (though I realize he's used this movie as inspiration for later works). Or about Kubrick until you've seen Fear and Desire, Flying Padre, and Day of the Flight. Or about Scorsese until you've seen all of his early work including his NYU shorts, and stuff like Italianamerican. I think I've made my point.
Five posts is a little too quick to get snippy. I know I need to see more movies by Scorsese, but there are very few people aroud who've seen every movie by every director they discuss. Bottom line, you don't have to reserve having an opinion on a director until after you've seen all his work. When the best that people say Scorsese has to offer ends up being this lackluster, I have a right to question the level of reverence in which he's held. And it's not that I didn't like the movies that I've seen by Scorsese, it's just that I think they're way too highly regarded, and not nearly as good as people (critics especially) make them out to be. My opinion of him is subject to change, but only based on the quality of whatever movie I see of his next, and not based on some rabid fanboy who got his panties in a wad because I said something disparaging about his lord and master.
Again, Raging Bull the best movie of the 80s? Puh-lease. Not with Ran around. Goodfellas, the best of the 90s? I don't think so. I could probably name ten movies from 1999 alone that top that one. It seems I've touched a nerve here, knocking on Scorsese, but I don't see why so many people bow at the altar of his movies and kiss the ground he walks on. Or PTA, or any director for that matter. Fandom is fine, but your knee-jerk reaction is just sad.
that being said - i think PT could beat up SCORCESE in a fight. PT would probably pull hair and fight really dirty.
:)
cb
So you have to see all the movies by a director in order to have an opinion? Okay, so shut up about Solondz until you've unearthed Fear, Anxiety & Depression and Schatt's Last Shot. Or about Linklater until you've seen It's Impossible to Learn to Plow By Reading Books. Or about Spike Lee until you've seen Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (though I realize he's used this movie as inspiration for later works). Or about Kubrick until you've seen Fear and Desire, Flying Padre, and Day of the Flight. Or about Scorsese until you've seen all of his early work including his NYU shorts, and stuff like Italianamerican. I think I've made my point.
no you didn't.
A) did you hear me talking about those other films/directors?
B) comparing raging bull to obscure movies that are nearly impossible to find is laughable.
C) you said "First off, Scorsese is not that great a director" which, to me, sounds like you're stating it as though it's a fact.
Five posts is a little too quick to get snippy.
ha! seeing five of scorsese's films is a little too quick to get snippy.
let me know when i've reached the point of message board posting that allows me to know anything. didn't know there was a correlation.
Fandom is fine, but your knee-jerk reaction is just sad.
i would consider your knee-jerk reaction...."i've seen 1/3 of scorsese's movies > he's not a great director" to be just as sad.
Quote from: abuck1220let me know when i've reached the point of message board posting that allows me to know anything.
well i'll start by pushing you in the right direction and teach you about the (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Ftemplates%2Fxixmac%2Fimages%2Flang_english%2Ficon_quote.gif&hash=a8d6ce285f5b043e014c8e210be4a3fead1fe82a) button.
Quote from: phil marloweQuote from: abuck1220let me know when i've reached the point of message board posting that allows me to know anything.
well i'll start by pushing you in the right direction and teach you about the (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Ftemplates%2Fxixmac%2Fimages%2Flang_english%2Ficon_quote.gif&hash=a8d6ce285f5b043e014c8e210be4a3fead1fe82a) button.
i know about the quote button...as evidenced by my mastery of it here. :-D
i just wanted to address several parts of his post separately and i didn't feel like messing w/ it.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaOr about Spike Lee until you've seen Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (though I realize he's used this movie as inspiration for later works).
Have you seen this? I've always wanted to see it and figured it wasn't available. I got a few PTA shorts off Ebay and the quality sucked so I haven't bothered pursuing any others.
Quote from: jasper_windowQuote from: OnomatopoeiaOr about Spike Lee until you've seen Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (though I realize he's used this movie as inspiration for later works).
Have you seen this? I've always wanted to see it and figured it wasn't available. I got a few PTA shorts off Ebay and the quality sucked so I haven't bothered pursuing any others.
Nope, sadly. I figure it's one of those holy grail type films a director doesn't want you to see. Though this one, like Scorsese's work at NYU, is supposed to be very good. I'd like to see a successful director so comfortable with his accomplishments that some day he'd be able to laugh at his early work (if it is laughable) and release it for the public to enjoy. That'd be nice with PTA, too, though I know some people here have seen his early stuff (namely The Dirk Diggler Story) and said it wasn't too great.
Quote from: filmcriticAbsolutely. And if he's not the new Orson Welles, he certainly the new Martin Scorsese. I think that if he keeps it up, he could eventually have as successful of a career as Scorsese. So far, he's doing great. "Boogie Nights" was his "Mean Streets" and "Magnolia" was his "Taxi Driver".
Actually, Hard Eight was his Mean Streets, Boogie was his Taxi Driver, and Magnolia was his Raging Bull. Oh, and PDL was his After Hours.
So we can still look forward to his Last Temptation Of Christ, Goodfellas and his Casino. And for those with any taste whatsoever, we can also look forward to his Bringing Out The Dead and Gangs Of New York.
Hmmm...
PTA is PTA and i hope he will forever
So when somebody better comes along, with they be the next new Orson Wells, or with they be the new PTA? Hmmmmmm...
I wonder what Brett Ratner would do in a situation like this...?
markums2k wrote:QuoteI wonder what Brett Ratner would do in a situation like this...?
Don't worry, whatever Ratner did, you'd be able to handle it, because it would be something you'd seen before...
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI'd like to see a successful director so comfortable with his accomplishments that some day he'd be able to laugh at his early work (if it is laughable) and release it for the public to enjoy.
M. Night Shyamalan. I'd like to see Robert Rodriguez's early works, besides Bedhead.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI'd like to see a successful director so comfortable with his accomplishments that some day he'd be able to laugh at his early work (if it is laughable) and release it for the public to enjoy.
Brett Ratner has included his shorts on the Red Dragon and Rush Hour 1 & 2 DVDs.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: jasper_windowQuote from: OnomatopoeiaOr about Spike Lee until you've seen Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (though I realize he's used this movie as inspiration for later works).
Have you seen this? I've always wanted to see it and figured it wasn't available. I got a few PTA shorts off Ebay and the quality sucked so I haven't bothered pursuing any others.
Nope, sadly. I figure it's one of those holy grail type films a director doesn't want you to see. Though this one, like Scorsese's work at NYU, is supposed to be very good. I'd like to see a successful director so comfortable with his accomplishments that some day he'd be able to laugh at his early work (if it is laughable) and release it for the public to enjoy. That'd be nice with PTA, too, though I know some people here have seen his early stuff (namely The Dirk Diggler Story) and said it wasn't too great.
I saw The Dirk Diggler Story and it isn't great, but considering he made when he was 17 (I believe) it's pretty good, if you look at it that way. I also saw Cigarettes and Coffe and that is good. I saw the 2 back to back and you can see how much he learned and grew in the years in between. I agree with you, it'd be real nice to see some of the filmmakers early work, good, or bad. Joe's Bed-Stuy is definitely at the top of my list.
The guys who do not wish to share their earlier work are often young and maybe a little bit insecure...
I'm not saying PTA and Ratner are insecure but they may inhabit some insecurities...
This could be complete bull...but it's a theory anyway.
Quote from: filmcritic
Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" is not a very good film.
.. :shock: .What are you taling about?!!!!!!! Thats ridiculous to say that..Maybe you have not even seen it b/c it you have and you have
decent tastes in film you would not have said this...Short Cuts is genius..
and he's no wells...thats comparing apples and oranges.. its like comparing lynch to spike lee..You don't they are both great and have their own style..
I would love to know what is so GREAT about "Short Cuts". I mean, the ending completly leaves you wanting more and the story just goes on at a tedious pace. I don't think it's a really bad film, just not a great one. I thought the performances were excellent and Altman did give many fresh ideas, but I didn't feel that all of them worked. Overall, a decent film.
Quote from: filmcriticI would love to know what is so GREAT about "Short Cuts".
Julianne Moore....no pants.
Brett Ratner is to PTA what Ed Wood is to Orson Welles
Quote from: Pedro the WombatBrett Ratner is to PTA what Ed Wood is to Orson Welles
ed wood was a genius who never recieved the funds his visions deserved.
that might just be a nice thought, but i hope its true.
I enjoy ed wood.
Quote from: Pedro the WombatBrett Ratner is to PTA what Ed Wood is to Orson Welles
Probably some day, when Ratner once more has problems with making his films, he'll go into a bar, meet his big idol PTA and aks him for advise. :-D
Quote from: MacGuffinBrett Ratner has included his shorts on the Red Dragon and Rush Hour 1 & 2 DVDs.
His short films or, literally, his "shorts," as in the clothing he wears under his expensive pants? :wink: