I'm being serious here. Not trying to hate. I watched a number of movies of his and wasn't too impressed. I giggled here and there but I don't think they are good enough to deserve the (sometimes) rabid fandom one comes across in these discussions.
I'd really appreciate the insight. What's so great about his technique?
He's doing something different in an industry where a lot of people are doing the same thing, he's quirky and his films are a visual delight plus he's a very intelligent writer. I think he's breath of fresh air personally.
shareHis movies are original and inventive. They are smartly written, witty and entertaining.
shareThey're well shot.
Everything else is dreary.
Thanks, much appreciated. Will try to pay more attentions to these details the next time I watch one of his movies.
shareVisual feast.
Terrific actors.
Unusual plots.
Great camera work.
^ this ^
shareI get that he's visually interesting, but that's not enough for me. Michael Bay can do interesting visuals. I don't see the intelligent writing at all. To me the characters and dialogue have no depth, no relatability, and no resonance. His characters are quirky but never seem to develop. They're very one dimensional. I always expect them to say and do something interesting, because the film is beautifully shot and Anderson has this great reputation, but there's never any complexity or depth. He's like a big tease who makes you think something good is coming but it never does.
Fear is the mind killer
Ditto (to JakeGrover), in spades.
I'm only in Show Biz by injection