I remember 2015. I remember the hype people had when the first teaser of Star Wars: The Force Awakens was dropped. I remember the memes depicting screenshots from old classic Star Wars movies, with super-imposed, fake lens-flares all over them. The meme was: it is J.J. Abrams, he is going to lend-flare the fuck out of Star Wars. I also remember the disappointment watching The Force Awakens for the first time, not really seeing many of those lens-flares people so anticipated. What happened? Well... Star Trek Into Darkness happened.
There is nothing I love more than multilayered storytelling references. Here I am not referring to plot details which have multiple layers of meaning, although that is great too. No, I am referring to the meta-textual references. There is a director whose filmography boasts a considerable amount of referential material. That man is none other that ~Quentin Tarantino}()~ [J. J. Abrams.
I love Mission Impossible II. In my opinion John Woo directed an action masterpiece with that film. But unfortunately we live in the world where critics have no appreciation for good action. Come on, Oscars for stunts are just now started to be considered. So... in an unfortunate set of events MI2 was a critical failure. Too dissimilar to what Bryan De Palma did on the first picture, they said. J.J. Abrams with his feature film directorial debut decided to fix everything, while still making a movie that action fans would enjoy. How?
I have a soft spot for J. J. Abrams. His masterpiece Super 8 inspired me greatly to develop film-projects when I was a teenager. But his 2009 other masterpiece Star Trek ( together with 2009'th other Sci-Fi masterpiece Avatar by James Cameron ) is what pretty much started my obsession with space movies.
A lot of people are big fans of the Christopher McQuarrie movies in the Mission: Impossible series. A lot of more sophisticated movie goers prefer the more serious first picture directed by Brian De Palma. Some are the fans of the Brad Bird and J. J. Abrams installments. But almost everybody unanimously loves to hate on the John Woo second film Mission: Impossible 2. I frankly, don't get it.
To the people complaining, the concerns are understood. There was especially a gross breach of them during a big and important speech. People complained, so he stopped with them. Even for such an impediment...
There is a trio of directors who could be considered the masters of depicting water: James Cameron, Luc Besson and Guillermo del Toro. They have shown themselves to be...
In the year 2022 Steven Spielberg directed a film about his own life, in a little known feature The Fabelmans. Although not a full documentary, it's semi-fictional nature was still education. The movie was teaching the audience how to make movies, how a single spark of The Greatest Show on Earth inspired Spielberg to become a director.
"Listen" is the message of Steven Spielberg's 2026's alien picture Disclosure Day. Why would Spielberg do this specific movie, about this specific subject matter? What should we listen to? What is the Disclosure of the Disclosure Day?
People accuse me of many bad things for making a movie where kids go against their parents into dangerous situations. Apparently they never seen Super 8. One criticism I hear often about Super 8 is that the kids in this film are way too brave! No wonder Steven Spielberg is attached to this project. He made and produced a fair share of anti-ageism films in his career.
Critics gave negative reviews to 2004 Tony Scott's film Man on Fire because of "grim story that gets harder to take the longer it goes on". Are you fucking serious? How then Lars Von Trier movies get good reviews? Something isn't quite right here. To be frank, the film is very ultra-cinematic. Which could rub some critics the wrong way. Scott doesn't just direct the shit out of it. He also edits the shit out of it. Making one of the coolest directed films in existence. Which if you think about it, isn't particularly what critics find as a serious picture. And yes, the film is grim. At times it feel like a horror film. Not just a thriller. But the film is a rather satisfactory experience.
It is not often that a horror films appears to tickle the right nerves from the high-brow crowd of cinema critics. With 93% Rotten Tomatoes score though, it is safe to assume that Zach Cregger's Weapons from 2025 is one of those rare movies.
Tony Scott appeared to be trying to outgrow Michael Bay in the 2000s. In 2001 he does Spy Game which is a kind of slightly bayhem-ish movie. Where Tony Scott is no longer trying to make pretty pictures, but is trying to go for ultimate intensity. His Enemy of the State before that, is still more of a classic Tony Scott. While making Spy Game his brother Ridley Scott was making Black Hawk Down while Michael Bay was making Pearl Harbor. While Pearl Harbor has the Bay's explosions and stuff, the colors of the film still look relatively normal. Only his next film ( 2003 Bay Boys II ) go crazy with colors. Spy Game, while being more energetic in directing and editing department, than even Enemy of the State still looks like a normal movie, albeit it is a little desaturated. But Black Hawk Down ( probably in attempt of messing with Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan ) is super moody, with extreme contrast and intense colors. A thing that Michael Bay tries to replicate right away for Bad Boys II and then Tony Scott also replicated for Man on Fire in 2004. And then on Domino in 2005, Tony Scott goes even harder with the style. While Bay is doing roughly the same thing in his own way in The Island.
Nobody knows everything. The top scientists don't know everything. The science is incomplete. The GΓΆdel's incompleteness theorems show that even something as basic as math ( which we rely on to understand the rest of the world ) is incomplete. And probably logically dubious as well. We can't know everything.