Literally perfect kinography

Hey I liked how they integrated the non linear nature of the aliens perception of time into the editing of the film, I thought it was kinda cool although it makes it much less interesting on repeat watches when you know the "twist" going in.

Also prisoners was his best movie still tbh

I don't see how you're surprised someone's ranking some movie above a bad movie with good cinematography.

That's his style, watered down arguments to the point of sterility, i still wonder how he got his jobs, all his stuff is really good to look at in frames but painful to follow
His best was Incendies in my opinion, but i still need to see his breadwinner, Maelstrom.

I'm surprised someone ranked it above a bad movie with mediocre cinematography, with the exception of the credits, those had excellent panoramic skyline takes.
How can a man get so much job with so little effort in terms of directing the narrative?

That really isn't his style, I don't think villeneuve is perfect or even a great director, but what you're saying is really off base and not that well thought out.

Let me rephrase it, his style, or at least the projects he picks up, are about timely events that have the peculiarity of being "boring" in second viewings, boring as in lacking secondary factors that might entertain the viewer
Other than his classy eye for good camera and atmosphere, his movies usually lack good (good as in memorable, maybe quotable, entertaining yet realistic without going overboard with quirky for the sake of it) acting, or even interesting acting that might just guarantee a look into an individual's psyche, lack details in scenes other than cleanliness and the characters' obliviousness of their environment and overall fucking good writing that makes you see the paths or just the cunning decisions or phrasing some character might've had.

Enemy is the prime example of all Dennis' problems, when your camera is not at its best, or there's simply no arguments to show-off a technique or special angles, you are stranded with the argument, its narrative and how actors are pulling it, music not included because it's a full motion picture, even at 75 minutes.
In this movie the argument was well above-average, it pulled my attention for at least 30 minutes, it was that interesting, first 15 minutes are free due to viewer's bid, but come on, well after 45 minutes the movie had gone almost nowhere, the time i had invested in was purely due to morbidity, and the climax was as cold as the beginning.
In the mood to make things realistic with the cold/deadpan acting, things got silly at the reactions of our participants, which are way offshoot, at least for my conventional idiosyncrasy, i saw it as drama for the sake of drama.

One thing for sure, i said, was that the book is actually like that, i dislike magic realism mumbo jumbo some dope slingers invented in the 60's, but i couldn't imagine it being to disjointed like in the movie. Turns out i found some weed smoking feller, nice lad, who actually had seen both the book and the movie, and explained to me things that appear in the former that are just graphically empathized yet unexplained in the flick, like spiders and their symbolism regarding our classroom hero's sexual life and ideal of a woman. Now i know that stuff wasn't notable in Dostoyevsky's work, and if the guy mentioned it so clear was because Villeneuve's script was simply shit, and renders the movie a complementary work for a book, or even a freakshow of context taking into account the original's supposed connotations of dictatorship classes and your own life under Franco's dictatorship, spanish folklore and downright panic of long term engagement fucking you up like a spider fucks and kills their mate.

It's shit down to its very premise to see what intention to serve as a motion picture: a low-budget hobby flick, a festival hour filler, a movie, a complementary work to a book popular in latino countries. Then it's execution, a yellow filter to serve what intention? uric atmosphere in the sweaty, tense days of that one summer? why the over reactions contrasting deadpan acting? why get fucking cuckolded in the first place? what is wrong with iberian literature, the only thing going for Spain in the fine arts?

I was going to say Dennis picks only brownpills for actresses because of how much shit they suck, but i remember this gril doing a good job, but she's a side job, only relevant until the last 5 minutes.
Overall his films suffer from these problems, nothing memorable, hardly anything of importance happens in the time being, one-dimensional "silent steve" acting, sterile sets, nice shots tho, and shitty script in terms of grip factor or just keep shit moving in a respectable way as a narrative-focused situation, who cares about the physical micro-deterioration of some dude in the middle of a fucking gang war in the border?
Nice ending song too, coonass

100% patrician

Dune is cursed so that might stop him.

Prisoners had none of the problems you listed and is still his best work imo, Blade runner 2049 had some interesting script concepts but was bogged down by an over reliance on exposition. Other than that this is a very spot on post. Great Job.

Like some have very well said around here, if it wasn't focused as a shoehorned sequel written by a jew who didn't read the novel in the first place it would've been an actual pretty good standalone movie within the same universe without raping anyone's legacy. Shamefully, it was made in Hollywood, and even as a hamfisted project it failed to bring many factors back, like the music, Vangelis was free and still working, no excuses from the production.
It's still a decent conversation topic, now that some people bring the story that jews leak bad shit into their work, and this mean ride had a major terrorist attack regarding a bomb on Vegas Strip, like the Vegas shooting being actually focused on the gas tankers. Pure speculation, i just wanted to bring that up for giggles.

Will rewatch Prisoners now if you mention that with confidence, and will check Maelstrom just to see if this guy had an actual career booster or if some people wanted a new meme director and just picked some cinematographer who thought he could be big.

Prisoners is a very well executed and acted film, but it has a very basic story and plot, crime thrillers are one of the easiest films to direct, but this one captured a good tone and sense of tension throughout.

It's fitting that the only moments not to do with the original bladerunner (joi, the whole losing a large chunk of recent history due to hard drive destruction, cognition checks for replicants) were the iconic and most well liked parts of 2049. It's one of 2017s biggest mixed bags, that could be greatly improved with a lot of editing and removal of certain dialogue scenes (the scene where the police chief literally explains the theme word for word to the audience, and the scene where they reveal the twist of his memory actually being real BEFORE the big dramatic reveal scene in the orphanage being the key ones)

Nothing, completely forgettable movie, what was even the point?

Did you just have an aneurysm? You said it had good cinematography in the previous post and now you're saying it's a bad movie with bad cinematography. Or do you just spout buzzwords without knowing what they mean?
Revise your sentence. If I rank Enemy above Arrival, then it means you're talking about Arrival, fartbrain.

Exactly. It wasn't bad, it was just completely generic.

Lies, it was directed with excellence, taking full advantage of the medium to tell a story about time.

Blade Runner 2049 6/10
Arrival 2/10
Sicario 6/10
Enemy 7.5/10
Prisoners 6.5/10

Wow such perfection. You are a redditor

Tonight I'm goint to watch Sicario for like the 10th time just to spite you faggots

No wonder i see that shitflick shilled a ton, you post about it every time you see it
But we all have our special poison, i hope you enjoyed it again

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!