Jump to content

Film Thread


ssiscool

Recommended Posts

Guest Sweet Tooth
I very much enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. :)
Just saw Basterds.

I love Tarantino... so, so much.

Horrible movie. Good action scenes? Yes. Waiting 45 minutes for each scene? Not worth it. The only way I'll see this movie again is if it's playing in the background of some party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I very much enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. :)
Just saw Basterds.

I love Tarantino... so, so much.

Horrible movie. Good action scenes? Yes. Waiting 45 minutes for each scene? Not worth it. The only way I'll see this movie again is if it's playing in the background of some party.

Just... uhh.... :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. :)
Just saw Basterds.

I love Tarantino... so, so much.

Horrible movie. Good action scenes? Yes. Waiting 45 minutes for each scene? Not worth it. The only way I'll see this movie again is if it's playing in the background of some party.

You must not be a fan of Pulp Fiction then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. :)
Just saw Basterds.

I love Tarantino... so, so much.

Horrible movie. Good action scenes? Yes. Waiting 45 minutes for each scene? Not worth it. The only way I'll see this movie again is if it's playing in the background of some party.

You must not be a fan of Pulp Fiction then.

Deathproof is the perfect example, 45 mins of dialogue. ACTION! Half an hour dialogue. ACTION! 15 mins dialogue. ACTION! Deathproof just bored we as aside from the action the scenes and conversations didnt do it for me. I am a fan of his other work though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. :)
Just saw Basterds.

I love Tarantino... so, so much.

Horrible movie. Good action scenes? Yes. Waiting 45 minutes for each scene? Not worth it. The only way I'll see this movie again is if it's playing in the background of some party.

You must not be a fan of Pulp Fiction then.

Deathproof is the perfect example, 45 mins of dialogue. ACTION! Half an hour dialogue. ACTION! 15 mins dialogue. ACTION! Deathproof just bored we as aside from the action the scenes and conversations didnt do it for me. I am a fan of his other work though

I was going to say "You must not be a fan of Tarantino at all", but I figured that wouldn't make sense since I can't say I've seen all of his movies. I just used the example that was freshest in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched Inglorious. Nothing new from Tarantino, certainly nothing original, lots and lots of things taken from other movies basically...lots of Leone-isms, shades of Good the Bad and the Ugly, lots of kinda western stylistic standards sorta taken and appropriated and not just Spaghetti Westerns either...There were one or two performances though, acting-wise that kinda set this movie apart, sure it was indulgent but not overly so, not in my opinion, unlike Death Proof (which i also quite liked) there's a lot more substance in the dialogue parts insofar as they assist in the characterisations.

I just think that if QT would be a little less reliant on...other peoples meat and potatoes he might grow as a director. He takes in a way that is ham-fisted at times and kinda...a step away from tasteful cheeky little well placed tribute, he actually relies on these things for someone reason. That whole room spiney Carrie thing and that little almost Searchers-ish doorway shot...and that whole "leave one person alive so they can tell everybody what took place" thing that he stole from For a Few Dollars more (twice!)...just loadsa stuff. Its getting to the point now where his...nods to all his influences is whats worst about his movies.

He uses pace very well in his movies for his characterisations...this fails him sometimes because the characters don't always have a lotta mileage in em i.e. Stuntman Mike...in fact every character in Death Proof, that was Death Proofs problem i think, because the characters didn't really have anywhere to go the characterisations were very much...exercises in photographing them in a cool way. Basterds characters have a lot of mileage so the pace and dialogue serve them well.

A few performances, guy who played Landa, guy who played Zoller, amazing...best performances out of the movie.

Overall? Neat movie, i really liked it :)

Edited by dirtylenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i liked district 9 just cause it did the whole alien genre practically. most alien movies are of the cheesey cowboy variety (independence day). district 9 was cool cause it was different. for once we weren't being invaded by aliens, but suck with some. what would happen? for the most part the movie seemed realistic, real world scenario. i liked it.

started watching the mad max movies in honour of homan. first one was pretty good, nothin to write home about. i really liked the second, good story. i only got about 1/2 way thru the third one before i stopped watching. i forgot how much i hate mel gibson. the first 2 were ok because it was pre-hollywood / fame / douchebaggery mel, so i could look past it, but the third one was way too hollywood for me, mel seemed like more of a star in that one, and youve got tina turner decending from the sky on a cable? ill probably finish it at some point but i havent had a "fuck this guy" reaction like that since i tried to watch mission impossible 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you but in my opinion the quality of the stories themselves never live up to the quality of the dialouges and situations. His movies are very artificial. I like to compare him to a guitar virtuoso. A guy that basicly can do anything with his medium but at times lacks the story he wants to tell. That's not the way he makes a movie. He said it himself he has the idea of making a blackploitation movie, an exploitation movie, a kung fu movie. He never starts a movie because there's a certain story he wants to tell.

No, he starts everything out because there's a certain genre he wants to pay tribute too. He has no interests outside of film and music. It shows in his work, as brilliantly made as it is. The sole flesh and blood exception being Jackie Brown, which is of course, an adaptation.

My point still stands though.

Yesterday I watched the opposite of an Tarantino film. Apocalypto which was massive. The whole movie is shot in mayatan the original Indio language that was spoken in that area. It's only subtitled. Of course this movie is not dialouge based but the story and the intense actors make that movbie great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you but in my opinion the quality of the stories themselves never live up to the quality of the dialouges and situations. His movies are very artificial. I like to compare him to a guitar virtuoso. A guy that basicly can do anything with his medium but at times lacks the story he wants to tell. That's not the way he makes a movie. He said it himself he has the idea of making a blackploitation movie, an exploitation movie, a kung fu movie. He never starts a movie because there's a certain story he wants to tell.

No, he starts everything out because there's a certain genre he wants to pay tribute too. He has no interests outside of film and music. It shows in his work, as brilliantly made as it is. The sole flesh and blood exception being Jackie Brown, which is of course, an adaptation.

My point still stands though.

Yesterday I watched the opposite of an Tarantino film. Apocalypto which was massive. The whole movie is shot in mayatan the original Indio language that was spoken in that area. It's only subtitled. Of course this movie is not dialouge based but the story and the intense actors make that movbie great.

meh...it was ok

now harold a kumar go to white castle....wooohooo

ha i actually liked apocalypto a lot. very good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you but in my opinion the quality of the stories themselves never live up to the quality of the dialouges and situations. His movies are very artificial. I like to compare him to a guitar virtuoso. A guy that basicly can do anything with his medium but at times lacks the story he wants to tell. That's not the way he makes a movie. He said it himself he has the idea of making a blackploitation movie, an exploitation movie, a kung fu movie. He never starts a movie because there's a certain story he wants to tell.

No, he starts everything out because there's a certain genre he wants to pay tribute too. He has no interests outside of film and music. It shows in his work, as brilliantly made as it is. The sole flesh and blood exception being Jackie Brown, which is of course, an adaptation.

My point still stands though.

Why shouldn't it, I was agreeing with you? :blink: (Except the part where Apocalypto doesn't suck).

I just wanted you to say that again. And Apocalypto is really great. :rofl-lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IB - BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

God damn how i wanted Brad Pitt and who ever played that jewish bitch to die. Eli Roth was just Eli Roth,baaad actor but the german propaganda film he made was by far the funniest thing in the movie.

Why is it that the best things Tarantino has made,True Romance and From Dusk Till Dawn,are movies that he has only written....hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you but in my opinion the quality of the stories themselves never live up to the quality of the dialouges and situations. His movies are very artificial. I like to compare him to a guitar virtuoso. A guy that basicly can do anything with his medium but at times lacks the story he wants to tell. That's not the way he makes a movie. He said it himself he has the idea of making a blackploitation movie, an exploitation movie, a kung fu movie. He never starts a movie because there's a certain story he wants to tell.

No, he starts everything out because there's a certain genre he wants to pay tribute too. He has no interests outside of film and music. It shows in his work, as brilliantly made as it is. The sole flesh and blood exception being Jackie Brown, which is of course, an adaptation.

My point still stands though.

Why shouldn't it, I was agreeing with you? :blink: (Except the part where Apocalypto doesn't suck).

I just wanted you to say that again. And Apocalypto is really great. :rofl-lol:

Then say it directly and don't pretend that it's wrong just to generously admit that I was right later.

I also agree with the above sentance...Apocalypto is really great... :rofl-lol:

Yeah than say it like that and don't pretend that it's wrong just to generously admit that I was right afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore disappointed the crap outta me.

Saw Basterds again twice today. As much as I liked it the first go around, a second helping allowed me to truly appreciate what a masterpiece it is, while the third prominently affirmed those sentiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...