I think 1SO means auteur?
It's nothing I haven't experienced before, I just don't experience it often enough.
I often think of this criticism, which I have made many times before, to be incredibly shaky. Could you elaborate? Are you judging art from a purely subjective point-of-view? Can't we argue that all films are art and the people who create them artists?
Wouldn't opening up my thought to a wider discussion just make my point-of-view shakier? In the span of 2 posts, my word was changed from 'artist' to 'auteur', followed by an immediate reply as to why Reeves can be considered an auteur. Those last two post are full of land mine debates - subjective, are all films art?, auteurism and novelty - and I don't care to be pulled into stepping on any of them.
But I will jump on another hot-button debate to explain my point. Tarantino steals his ideas - verbal and visual - from a wide variety of sources. However, he puts those lifts through his own filter to create something
new original whatever the safe word is for 'it didn't look that good in its original form'. He didn't invent paint, but he throws the colors together in a very unique way.
Matt Reeves has a solid idea of the mathematics of cinema. A + B will produce C. Those 2 scares from Cloverfield posted earlier. Nothing I haven't seen done before, but they work and Reeves knows they work and that's why he does it. He doesn't present it in a novel way, but it creates the intended effect. There's a lack of risk with Reeves, which is going to keep him hirable.