DrAwkward wrote:Hyperbole. It's a device i enjoy from time to time.
Dudley wrote:Hmmm. Of late, complete crap. SnakeEyes and The Black Dahlia are jaw-droppingly awful, Mission To Mars, Bonfire Of The Vanities, Mission Impossible, all pretty piss-poor.
I really like Carlito's Way and Carrie, and The Untouchables and Scarface are good fun.
So many of his more recent films look really flat and syntheticy, like cheap-ish TV drama.
So probably CRAP with waffles
boilermaker wrote:Oh very very Crap. I think every film he's made is deeply flawed or at least very clunky direction wose. Those that placeholder mentions are all ok. I, for the life of me, can't work out how he attracts the big name casts he does. What he does well, however, is plunder others work(Hitchcock or Eisenstein for example), not unlike Tarantino.
placeholder wrote:I have read that he and Dario Argento have some sort of long-standing feud. On his best day, DePalma cannot touch Argento.
punch_the_lion wrote:Argento has made as much dreck as DePalma. He hasn't even directed a decent film since the 1980's.The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Deep Reed and Suspiria are the only ones I would rate really highly. At least DePalma has been eclectic and mixed genres with misfires along the way. I think "hack" is too harsh a descriptor.
placeholder wrote:punch_the_lion wrote:Argento has made as much dreck as DePalma. He hasn't even directed a decent film since the 1980's.The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Deep Reed and Suspiria are the only ones I would rate really highly. At least DePalma has been eclectic and mixed genres with misfires along the way. I think "hack" is too harsh a descriptor.
I'd rate Argento's Trauma, The Card Player, Sleepless. and The Stendhal Syndrome as much better than decent, though I suspect his best work is unfortunately behind him. In any case, I think Tenebre, Inferno, and Opera are among the man's best, in addition to the ones you named.
Argento has done plenty of dreck to be sure, but I don't think he did anything less than stellar until the '90s.
DePalma's work has almost consistently been abysmal, and I certainly don't think he's done anything worthwhile since the '80s. I stand by my contention that he is a hack. I don't see much eclecticism (Is that a word?) in his work either.
Let's argue about movies on the internet!
punch_the_lion wrote:Eclecticism is a word and appropriate for DePalma in terms of genre.
punch_the_lion wrote:As for Argento, I think his influences like Hitchcock and Bava are often very overt, just like DePalma.
sparky wrote:but they have no heart, and are occasionally very unpleasant.
boilermaker wrote:sparky wrote:but they have no heart, and are occasionally very unpleasant.
You've nailed it with those few words. although occasionally adorned with pretty pictures, de Palma's films for the most part are technical exercises and little more. There is also a nastiness that permeates his films which makes it almost impossible to care about the fate of the characters.
Clueless in Chicago wrote:I'm going to stop following this thread. A bunch of D&D geeks in a basement somewhere in Oklahomma with their nuts tied around their thighs...
Ty Webb wrote:DePalma is the anti-John Carpenter.
CRAP w/WF 7 for The Untouchables, Carrie, and The Fury. (And even that last one is a very guilty pleasure.)