Born in 1982 in Strasbourg, France.
I would have put Bubble on this list. I don't think it's a very famous film, Soderbergh did a small budget with non-professional actors. The result is brillant.
Obviously you haven't watch the film. I did (in Venice, last Saturday). It is a true masterpiece and Joaquin Phoenix is at Daniel-Day Lewis level now. BUT it has nothing to do with comic books. It is NOT an adaptation of a comic book. It just uses names like "Joker", "Gotham" or "Wayne". That's it. It has nothing to do with all those crappy super heroes films. Actually, I'm pretty sure that most Avengers lovers will hate "Joker". It's an author film, with a real character and no black and white american morality. It's closer to let's say "There will be blood" than any other comic book adaptation. So to answer your question "Can We Say Comic Book Films Are Art Now?" well, art can be everything as long as it moves, changes and shakes people and make them think about the world they live in. So 99% of cinema today is NOT art, it's just simple entertainment. But a comic book adaptation could be art, yes.
That's such a bad article... In so many ways. Basically, the author (who uses the childish word "movie") claims that the films is overrated because: 1. "the movie became lauded is the legendary struggle to make it."-> Hum, probably 99% of the people who watched that film don't care about the making and never heard of it. The film had a Palme d'Or. It's a famous film because it's a great one.
2. "it feels a bit more like a mistake and lack of intentionality. Not a real stroke of genius" -> The author don't understand the film, and that's the fault of the director?
And what about this Bertolucci thing? Tay Garnett and then Bob Rafaelson directed the adaptation of "The Postman...". He probably thought about Last Tango in Paris...
So the author thinks that the film is mostly famous because of its making and then criticizes that making to tell the film is overrated? That's complete non-sense.
I've been reading No Film School since the beginning, but I can see that this website is going in the wrong direction... Like Hollywood and US cinema in general.
I wish No Film School would focus on cinema, art, on films, not movies, and talk about great contemporary filmmakers like Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Na Hong-jin or new promising filmmakers like Beatriz Seigner, Phuttiphong Aroonpheng or Robert Eggers. There is so much to talk about!
Question for anyone reading! I just watched this episode again (finishing a GOT marathon, one season a day). The first time I watched the episode on an OK LCD TV, it was quite dark. This time I watched it on my great plasma TV, and the episode was so beautiful that I've been wondering if a new color rendering has been made (watched twice from a VOD service). Cause what I just saw was perfectly lit and by far the most beautiful episode of the show!
I'm definitely team PTA here! Tarantino's remark is kinda dumb. Even a bad filmmaker or a filmmaker making cheap B movies with robots or monsters can see he has progress over the years. People who make different kinds of films, like porn, or weird cheap "nanars" (I don't know what the term is in english.. Z movie?) know they're not Orson Welles but they can enjoy their work and find it good in the spectrum of their own genre.
Netflix is such a stupid company... That scene was amazing. Hard to watch but realistic. That was THE scene saying "here's what happens when you try to kill yourself". And they cut it away now???