[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

He always made intelligent films for adults that were actually about something. Looking at his filmography, I'm shocked to see he never made a shitty movie. Quite an accomplishment.

After the Kubrick discussion it's worth noting there's nothing especially technically stunning in a Nichols film. I mean, he didn't have a unique style, and I can't think of too many striking images from his films on par with, say, blood pouring from an elevator. But apparently there are more important aspects of good direction because, like I said, none of his films sucked.

i think you like filmed theatre more than film, which is fine if that's what you like; and nichols was a fine actor and theatre director, but honestly i looked up his filmography and while there are gems (the graduate, who's afraid of virginia woolf) he also made some shit. (i haven't seen catch 22 so i can't talk about that which could be a gem i don't know).

looking at his filmography, i once tried watching "postcards from the edge" and couldn't get past the first insufferable 10 minutes; "closer' was a disappointment (natalie portman as a stripper and what was it about?), "charlie wilson's war" was okay but mostly because it was a sorkin screenplay, "the birdcage" was a direct copy of a much better (funnier, earlier, braver) french film, "working girl" was fun but very forgettable. i guess i could say the same about a lot of other movies he made. i remember people talking about "wolf" when it came out but i don't hear anyone talking about it today. i just also realized i've seen "primary colors" which was like a funny tv show.

not trying to shit on a man who's not even yet buried, but come on, don't use him to throw shade on kubrick.