Take Shelter is pretty universally considered his best film, as it is. Mud benefits by being seen by more people because of all the movie stars.
I agree that Take Shelter is his best film (as I've said before). It's just that in terms of overall critical reception, Mud is ranked higher at 98%, which isn't something one can discount out of the gate. But Mud really only had McConaughey and Withserspoon in it in terms of "movie stars." And even then, McConaughey was still essentially considered a not-serious actor at the time Mud came out. Also, if your complaint is that Nichols makes films with "movie stars" now, and that "movie stars = bad," that doesn't really hold any water either. Unless you consider Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga to be at the same level of fame as Reese Witherspoon and Matthew McConaughey (they aren't). Also his films basically helped turn Michael Shannon into a bigger star as well, which isn't exactly a bad thing.
Michael Shannon has just become one of my favorites recently with this, Man of Steel, 99 Homes and even Nocturnal Animals (which I didn't like really but he was awesome in). I cant really speak on the quality of Take Shelter since I haven't seen it, but yeah Mud is the only one with a wide release right? I think that movie is more well known so I wouldn't say TS universally considered the best because I think the majority of people haven't seen it.
I think Midnight Special had a brief wide release but if it did it was very, very brief. I didn't catch it until it came out on blu-ray because I never got around to seeing it when I had a small window of opportunity. Either way, if you are a Michael Shannon fan, you really owe it to yourself to see Take Shelter as soon as humanly possible.
What? When did this happen? The guy from Dazed and Confused and the girl from Legally Blonde are movie stars so a lot more people saw it than Take Shelter. However, among people who are serious about film, mostly everyone agrees that Take Shelter is his best. It isn't particularly close, either; Take Shelter was a very great film in arguably the best year of film this century, while Mud was not close.
The tone of your post suggested that movie stars being in Mud makes it inferior. Also, again, and I can't stress this enough, I think Take Shelter is his best film as well.
Oh! People who are serious about film! Well, it's good to know how serious you are! Clearly, nobody else here with a differing opinion takes film as seriously as you.
No one really cares or is worried you have a different opinion. It is the whole point of a forum/discussion/argument/conversation. However, it is hard to determine the reason to being against the idea that there is a difference between a casual and serious audience.
Don't act like this difference doesn't exist. Would you say someone who works at McDonalds is as serious about cooking as someone who works at, say, a fine dining restaurant? Or if it works better for you, would you say someone who mostly eats from McDonalds is as serious about food as someone who mostly eats at finer dining restaurants? How is that different from someone who watches films made for commercial purposes being considered less serious about film as an art form than someone who watches classic/world/independent cinema?
You edited this in after the fact so let me just say that I agree with you, again, and on all counts.
It's not really any different from someone who watches only films made "for commercial purposes," if that's what you meant.
All film is a product made to make money. There are people like me who love blockbusters and the smaller, indie films. There are people who only are aware and like the blockbusters and vice versa. I think Blockbusters are better for a ton of reasons, doesn't make me any less serious about film and down talking just makes film snobs look bad.
You're right. And it's also that kind of insular, exclusionary attitude that turns a lot of people off from wanting to get into foreign/classic/independent films. I see you posting all over on here, I wouldn't question for a second that you love movies. Definitely continue broadening your horizons when it comes to these types of films. And watch Take Shelter, dammit!
I don't think anyone disputes that some people take film more "seriously" than others. But attempting to appeal to an authority by claiming to know the majority opinion of some monolithic entity of "serious film viewers" just seems silly. Take Shelter and Mud are both heavily praised. I don't know how you would determine which one is preferred by the majority of "serious film viewers." EDIT: Just for fun: Metacritic gives the nod to Take Shelter. Although Metacritic user reviews gives the nod to Mud. Rotten Tomatoes is a victory for Mud. And IMBD users rated them both 7.4.
You are so incredibly wrong. You think an Albert Serra or Lisandro Alonso film is made with the thought of how much profit it can bring in? I don't think you have a grasp on how many films are made and then never given distribution.
While its hard to argue because I have never heard of them, isn't the goal to have it picked up and get paid for your hard work? I'm not saying you can't have a passion for it too, but it is work.
There is this really weird pushback to the idea that film is something that can be appreciated at different levels depending on your knowledge of it. It is only logical; someone who watches multiple movies per week and is seeking out experimental/arthouse/foreign films is going to have a more refined perspective. It seems like they take it as a personal slight when none was intended; no one can be an expert on everything.
It is irrelevant which one is considered better by a monolithic entity. The other poster is the one who brought it up, but generally Take Shelter was praised more heavily. It is not hard to determine; reading reviews and looking at top ten lists makes it obvious.
No, this never happens. Any time people want to get deeper into film, cinephiles offer to help them. People don't watch those films because they don't want to.
I don't see davjs getting much help from the cinephiles in this thread, but oh well. When someone is maybe less informed than myself on a given topic, I've always found that education is preferable to animosity. Just sayin'
There are films that take years to get finished. Jafar Panahi was arrested for the types of films he was making. If it was all about money, there would be eight superhero movies coming out every week.