Spot on with Pusher analysis. 1st and 3rd very good. Remake was shit. As we all know, unfortunately, a lot of big budget movies suck. Sometimes they're good. Big budget will only add some nice photography and sound and marketing to a boring story. Last 15-20 years have been relatively weak vs. better films of the 70s/80s IMO. Pusher was a breathe of fresh air. Refn's movie 'Drive' was damn good too. Was lucky to see it in theater.

The Pusher films are great and Refn is a great filmmaker. He has a very certain style, if you watch his latest films (Bronson, Valhalla Rising, Drive and Only God Forgives) the grittiness of Pusher is gone and instead he uses clear color contrasts, little dialog and long sequences. The almost Dogme style of the Pusher films are mostly because of Budget. Refn made Pusher himself with a very small budget. I think that is what forced the film to be very gritty. But if you see his latest work he certainly have a "knackeye" for the cinematic and beautiful.

Had to comment on this... agreed Only God Forgive's that script must have been ten pages max lol.

I have not seen the original Pusher but I did see the remake, was watching the remake more for it's use of hand held and because they shot red one mx, a style I will be employing on my next film. The color and cinematography of the remake was great, I can totally see how the original would be the better film though.

However, I wanted to add that I don't think the remake had that big of a budget either, much more than Refn's original but nothing close to Hollywood budgets I would guess.

But this is all old news, a great story and characters trumps technology any day of the week. That's why I find funny when people freak out about 4k, 6k, aliasing, all that... at the end of the day story is king. I shot a feature in 2008 with a HVX200 in 720p! And that mofo got a 35mm blowup and theatrical release. I would have killed for even a GH1 back then lol. So IMHO better tech does not better a filmmaker make.

@BurnetRhoades did you like it, OGF?

Dialog does not equal a script

Unless it's Before Midnight :P sure it doesn't. Recently I felt like that when watching The Counselor, dialogs seemed from another film, from completely different characters (like out of a H. Miller's ecstatic drunk hangover), almost like when you're watching someone faraway and you imagine things that person could be saying. Didn't know what to make of that, guess I enjoyed the schizophrenia... of the dialogs as a concept.

PS
Now that I think of it, (The Counselor dialogs) are a bit like a carbon copy Goddard, Bergman or even Buñuel, but with a mainstream wrapper

@BurnetRhoades very fair points, my friend, very fair

It is very difficult to reach common ground when our "taste/like" is mixed with whatever position we take and in my case I admit with no shame it is always mixed up. It figures it's also something that we develop through the years and heavily based in our life's experiences, tinted by our passion and influenced by our metier. That should not stop us learning from opposite direction and making the reach some kinf of a common ground of agreement one of the main goals. =)

That said - and my butcher knifes sharpened - I admit I liked Bronson, mostly because Hardy's great job and how we are presented with this guy's story (like Bana's Chopper). In Drive also enjoyed colour palette and compression of light, tension and density of ambient and characters. But again, with a enormously bigger budget and maturity I would expect a fucking Apocalypse Now of blinding lyrickness from NWR, oh father of Pushers!!!... not close to B cam.

For instance, I like some of Malick's work, some is technically perfect, but technique it's not everything and despite The Thin Red Line being one of my favourite "war movies" and in which lyric and real go hand by hand in a superbly balanced union; most of Malick work has the tendency of using actors in most utilitarian (leechy) way and falling into a lyric eye popping emptyness exercise which however you put it seems and smells of an egotrippin empty soul to me. Not everybody is a Kubrick or a Welles. I know, I'm just a lazy cockroach, but it's what I think.

BTW there are a ton of (international, not just hollybood) reverenced directors, DPs, actors and fine artists I'll personally throw in a spaceship directed to nearest blackhole... with a timebomb and a hungry bunch of zombies.

Don't know the Kenneth Anger dude, put him in list to check ,-) • Again if you like something I don't I totally respect that and hopefully my stupid and very opinionated limited comments are not read as a personal attack to anybody, 'cause they're absolutely not. =)

Cool =)

Whenever I'm tempted to say something sucks I try to ask myself, "does it really suck or did I just not like it?"

I just don't see that there is such a clear separation... not even in science. I mean, how many need to agree on an opinion, 'cause in the end it will always be "just" matter of opinions, so that ONE can say it sucked or wonderful? This trendy "philoshophy" (not saying you're onto it) of you're a hater, you're this, you're that because you get involved with something is supposed to get you involved... how many great people must have been criticized and yet they managed... in time.

That could be a start of somethin': a film that only 1 person in the world likes... and it's not its director :P

I never talked anything about "all things being relative", please don't need to be serious but at least a minimum of accuracy, je je. I mentioned subjectivity, trends, involment and, if anything questioned the way of measurement on how certain cultural values are passed on. I totally agree that many things are better left alone, probably not even worth the fingertips' wear =) But that has nothing to do with objectifying (putting in words) a subjective assessment.

By making the separation between a subjective opinion creating a personal involvement/relation (I like it) and a subjective opinion expressed within a value - individual or collective - (it's wonderful), it seems to me you're the one relativizing the background issue into a simple language jigsaw.

For me all things have a value, not to be confused with usefulness. Now focusing on kultur, if it has a value, primarily it would be for yourself; you might find pleasing [^1] certain grading, or appreciate that angle shot where the cleavage made a beautiful slide to sin, or the sound design, or the actor making love to the 4th wall, or the pace the story unfolds, etc. What value has gazing a fucking Picasso if not for yourself FIRST??? Then, later on the story, as it's being usufructed from many souls - and here would be another big question about who decides (agents) and how (affects) what goes in the museum/cinemateque? - the thing, painting, film, sculpture, performance... anything culturally related, gains a very different status, a stability which comes of general recognition and wider value range, yes also money money.

[^1]
I have a very clear idea of the value I give to a storyteller... not talking about cinema now, but before written words even existed... as entertaining as it might be if there's no transmission is worthless as it defeats the very purpose of it's existence.

Ok, now for a little contradiction and the cherry on top of this pile of offtopicness, a chinese proverb, one has to learn how to love these guys 'cause they gonna own our sorry asses pretty soon :P

Everybody knows the usefulness of the useful but few know the usefulness of the useless

Also, an aspiring writer with sights on Hollywood is wise to contain his story within dialog blocks because many studio readers essentially skip stage directions once they have a handle on the story direction. That might be a their shortcoming, but either way, the writer suffers the consequences...

That's actually one of the worst rubs for unknown writers hacking out spec scripts trying to make it. They must tailor their scripts for the taste of the gatekeepers, ie the readers, but here's the thing, those studio readers are basically entry level jobs. On the one hand they have great influence over whether or not your script ever gets seen by anyone that can actually change your life. On the other hand they're reading all those scripts because their time is less valuable than that person who could change your life. They're who you must "save the cat" for.