Don´t you believe about this movie closer to the Lynch style?
Stone was good,but Lynch handles this kind of movie better.
What do you mean?
I disagree, Stone is a more talented director and can do this style of film, see NBK. Other than Blue Velvet, I can't think of a Lynch film that I thought was both intelligent and coherent. Lynch is just weird for weird sake and his stories and plots fall apart.
share[deleted]
I respect you opinion,but if you watch the best of Stone,he runs better
in great spaces of the history:JFK,Salvador,Born on the 4th of July,Nixon;
Lynch can take little spaces:Mullholland Drive,Blue Velvet,Wild at Heart,
Lost Highway,he can follow a road movie in certain distance and prefering
small towns or urban places in a circle of movement,now sometimes in his
final resolutions can confuse anyone,maybe that´s the reason why he is so
discussed,IT´S NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND HIS ENDINGS,STONE DOES MAKE IT INSTEAD.
Salvador, Platoon and JFK are Stone's best, no doubt.
I loved Blue Velvet, it had so much style and so many memorable characters and scenes. But I have been let-down by everything Lynch has done since. I was close to really liking Mullholland, but then he went and made one of his patented stupid and incoherent endings and that pissed me off to no end. However, where I give Stone the advantage over Lynch in this film are the quick cuts and numerous cuts. He mixes so many images and clips in that it is just mesmorizing.
Thanks for your opinion my friend,yes it´s true:Stone can handle better the
flashbacks,ups-down,bl/wh pictures,but his main advantage is the knowledge about the greatest moments of the American History,when you see "U Turn"
Stone spreads in a short space of "average people",they may be your
neighbor,your parents,or anybody else you know,Lynch moves over tiny places,
Stone can take over the huge places(Salvador,JFK,Nixon,Platoon and more)
I just have seen "American History X" with Edward Norton on my DVD,and as
i tell you about Lynch as i believe "American History" was a film made for
the size of Stone,Why? you can say:"Hey dude,but Derek Vinkyard is only a
fictional character",but if you watch with care that good movie the main
reason is the long conflict about the civil rights,racism,freedom of
faith,expression and the fighting of the ideas;Tony Kaye didn´t make it
bad,yet Stone could make a superior work because those themes are a
matter of discussion and division all around the USA.
Better see this film,the ending was not good,therefore i only rated with 7 the
movie,it deserved a more crafted final time,then i really missed Stone indeed,
it was his natural land,Stone does own the right background to that flick.
What do you mean about?
Greetings.
MM
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
That is not at all Lynch-ish