It's irrelevant who or what directed a movie; the important thing is that you either respond to it or you don't.
Here's the thing about movies, all movies end up on television. That's their life. Whether you like it or not, I don't care how much money you spend on it, or how big or broad the film is, or who the actors are in it, eventually it's all coming out of the box.
I signed 'Aurangzeb' because I loved the story. I thought it was an untold tale. For whatever reason, the audience did not like the film. Fair enough, but I still enjoyed the process.
I've always got a book in my hands, a novel in my hands. The more I get into film, the more paranoid I get that I'm going to stop seeing things.
Movies are our cheap and easy expression, the sullen art of displaced persons.
'Baahubali' is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
When I'm making a big movie, I miss and appreciate all the subtleties that come with making a smaller film that is more intimate, more personal.
I grew up with Apocalypse Now and Badlands, so I had a real awe thing going.
I see films in theaters, and I enjoy films. I enjoy the art of storytelling, and the different ways to tell them.
I've seen John Wayne's 'True Grit' about 10 times.
Everybody's going to do the 3D slightly differently the same way that people are going to deal with color differently. Some movies downplay the color, some color is very vibrant. Color design is very different. We've got to think of 3D like color or like sound, as just part of the creative palette that we paint with and not some whole new thing that completely redefines the medium.
I think every film is made better by having smart music supervision that's really in tune with the spirit of the visual content.
I like movies, because it's kind of a combination of every art, it's like it's picture, it's story, it's music, it's kind of like a clash and a collide of every art. It's really neat.
I'm probably not creative or talented enough to create an especially compelling piece of content, but I really do enjoy watching a great movie or TV show.
If you are not moved by the character, no amount of CGI will give you a performance that is emotionally engaging or devastating - what a live-action performance does.
I watched a lot of movies. I was deeply influenced by movies.
Film is a strange thing.
'Fences' is under the headline of the project of my lifetime. It is the most perfect and undeniably developed narrative that I've ever worked on.
I can't relax when I'm watching a biographical drama because it's so close to what it is that I do that I just long for more fiction - so that I can switch off.
The movie itself was very interesting, but I didn't think it was very good because I didn't really feel different when it was over.
In the vast majority of movies, everything is done for the audience. We are cued to laugh or cry, be frightened or relieved; Hitchcock called the movies a machine for causing emotions in the audience. Bresson (and Ozu) take a different approach. They regard, and ask us to regard along with them, and to arrive at conclusions about their characters that are our own. This is the cinema of empathy.
The thing I've come to learn is that what's great about small independent films is the intimacy and the communication that occurs when you're making them.
I'm a person who likes these sort of movies... sad but moving 'art movies' that normally are at a festival and then they go to a small art house theater and disappear.
It is great to be a part of big-budget movies, but it is harder to feel like you are contributing, in the sense that it has such big machinery behind it.
It's all movies for me. And besides, when you say documentaries, in my case, in most of these cases, means "feature film" in disguise.
