Zero Dark Thirty - Rotten Tomatoes looks good.
Printable View
Zero Dark Thirty - Rotten Tomatoes looks good.
You're just getting older and have seen too many movies, so nothing is original anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Lincoln looks good. I haven't seen it yet, but it stars Daniel Day-Lewis so...enough said. As for superhero flicks, I really enjoyed both Iron Man and The Avengers. The last two Oscar winners for Best Picture were really good: The Artist and The King's Speech.
So to answer your question, YES Hollywood does still make good movies.
It seems that maybe the way to do it is to not watch any movies made by directors "on their way up" when the studio starts seeing their greatness. Guys like Cameron and Scorsese are so big now that the studio doesn't mess with them and so what they make still has its integrity. The same applies to directors near the bottom. But it's when they reach the Nolan stage where the studios want to use their talents but the directors aren't big enough to not have to do what they're told. So maybe the real great movies are ones below and above a certain region where the studio tries to take the most control.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Look at wufwugy thinking too much again.
I'm using really ambiguous language here because I don't consider directors like the Coens who use Hollywood infrastructure as Hollywoodized like Michael Bay.Quote:
Originally Posted by JL
Nobody will ever tell Day-Lewis what he can and can't do; therefore, he cannot be Hollywoodized. I haven't seen the latter two so can't comment, and while I would call the two comic ones Hollywoodized, they were also decent at least. The thing is that Avengers should have NEVER been better than TDKR, yet it is. With Avengers they made a movie for the purpose of fanboi boners and popcorn fun, and it worked, but with TDKR they tried to make something deeper but also for fanboi boners yet because the studios have no idea how to do that they ended up just shitting on the real talents involved. It's almost as if the only great movies that come out of Hollywood are ones the studios don't care that much about
I haven't seen TDKR yet, but I will probably enjoy it now that my expectations are lower.
You're using Hollywood to describe the superficial and negative side of the industry. Do you see how Hollywood couldn't possibly make a good movie in your mind, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It certainly seems that way but I'm trying to use it as a level of involvement by the studios. The contrast is that the studios are companies and companies are run by lawyers and accountants and they are pretty much never responsible for good art and are often responsible for crushing it. Joe Rogan used to talk a lot about how he's seen tons of great shows and staffs destroyed by the studios acting like they know art.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
It looks to me that great movies almost always have studios that give the biggest leeway to the artists and merely provide the money and the infrastructure and connections to get it done. This type of thing explains Prometheus. The influence of the studio in that movie was so apparent by way of its cookie-cutter plots and characters. Did Ridley Scott really want to use that stupid sudden magic zombie alien or was that included because the writing staffs are all the same because of how much the studios control the art?
Favorite movie all time is Frequency. Great story with great actors / actresses. Pretty far fetched stuff but they made it seem so believable. Also great music especially the song by Garth Brooks at the end.
A movie staring Denis Quaid? The trolling is strong with you, sir.
Ya, pretty much any move with Randy Quaid is better. hehe
Django is legit as fuck and Tarantino is easily the best director there ever was. He had some hard stepping earlier in his career, but both Basterds and Django are as good as it gets
With seven films under his belt to date, his first three are Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown. Where is the "hard stepping?"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Any listing of favorite to least favorite QT movie should end with "and [the last movie on my list] is one of my favorite movies." Tarantino is just that good.
Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark and Melencholia are p good imo
Something about a wall flower was pretty good too.
Melancholia confirmed awesomeQuote:
Originally Posted by bikes
Yes, and there are one scene which is extremly great ;):lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal
That movie was a whole lot better than expected :)
I guess I can't comment because I didn't like some of those as much as other people, but I'd have to go back and watch them again to be sure. It seems Jackie Brown was never that big of a hit either. My point had to do more with I see a refining of his style in Basterds and Django that I didn't see in any of the others. His style is so unorthodox that not getting it just right can feel a little odd. I remember feeling Kill Bill tried to be unique in many ways but didn't quite pull it off to perfection, but in Basterds and Django, it was pulled off about as well as possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
Shame was pretty good as well IMO but i find i am one of the rare few people who agree with that in either of my film circles
I watched Jackie Brown when it first came out and thought it was okay. Saw it was on Netflix now so watched it again and thought it was great.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yeah, Jackie Brown improves on second viewing. It's a really solid movie. I hesitantly agree with you, wuf, on KB. I remember really liking it, but for some reason it didn't click with me the same way the rest of his movies did. I haven't seen them in years though, so I might have to check them out again. But nonetheless they are top tier films by any reasonable standard.
I do see what you are saying about his style being refined, but I would prefer to say it's matured. However, with artistic expression a tighter more mature style doesn't necessarily trump a looser and less restrained style of a young artist. They are simply different, and can be appreciated on their own merits without one being superior. Pulp Fiction vs Django is a perfect example of this.
I know I come across as a fanboy, but I just don't think he's ever made a bad movie, so I find it weird the way you summed up his career.
There's an amazing short film inside Death Proof somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Death Proof was a solid movie imo, I think a lot of people just didn't get it. It was Tarantino pretending to be a B movie maker in the 80's. But it was cool, because it was a B movie that self referenced B movies. And people opened their mouths in the movie while releasing vibrations from their vocal box which represented dialogue Tarantino had written in a script.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Planet Terror did a better job with the homage. Death Proof was character driven with the characters not revealed through action but through the shitty dialogue you mentioned. Not sure I recall any 80s B movies that were character driven to the same depth Tarantino tried to go. Can you think of one?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
It's not that it was bad, it just wasn't good either. There were a few moments of brilliance that didn't add up to a good movie once assembled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
I do remember liking Planet Terror better, but I can't get enough of zombies, so I figured that skewed my opinion.
And no, not a lot of character/dialogue driven B movies-- but that's mostly because the scripts were awful, because there weren't people on QT's level writing B movie scripts. QT made an home to 80's B movies; It's like Wallace and Gromit Go To The Moon, sure it's a movie about space travel-- but it's still going to be claymation and about an inventor and his zany dog.
I'll have to watch Death Proof again, but I remember thinking it was excellent. Had something to do with how the twist was set up and its level of believability.
I don't think Tarantino has made a bad movie, and I don't really consider "hard stepping" much of an insult. He went from being great to GOAT
I still haven't seen Django, and I never watched Death Proof. I don't understand why Jackie doesn't get more love. It's probably my favorite Tarantino movie to watch just because its such a fresh and sorely needed departure from his other work. I'd like to see him take a step back and adapt another book.
Inglourious was great, but I thought it was only a series of absolutely incredible scenes and not much of an overall movie, so I'd rank it pretty low in the list of Tarantino movies I've seen.
All in all, its probably Pulp, KB, Jackie, and RD and IB tied for last place, although obv I love them all.
BTW when I said "hard stepping" I had put some other stuff like From Dusk Till Dawn on him. I've never really been a connoisseur of Tarantino so I never looked into it, but I'd heard lots of people say that he did a bunch of partnership directions with Robert Rodriquez or that it was even his pseudonym
If what he's directed really is only what is under the Tarantino name then he is EASILY the best director ever. Nobody has a resume that lacking in bad material.
Dusk till Dawn was a fun movie, natural born killers was great but very little Tarantino was left at that point. True Romance was cumdump. Even Tarantino cannot add flavor to the insipidity of Tony Scott.
Yeah, I agree with this wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I still think Reservoir Dogs and especially Pulp Fiction are his best movies. Kill Bill and Jackie Brown were good, but lacking here and there. I see that there is a DVD screener of Django out, so I'll be watching that later today.
Looper and Girl with the Dragon tattoo are on deck for me this week.
Gonna go watch Django today.
Re dragon tattoo, as usual the book is considerably better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Haven't read the book or seen the original movie, but the Hollywood remake was a really good movie, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I've heard great things about the books, and all the movies are really good. Good stuff.
i rewatched the pianist today. holy fk that was a good movie
Django is the worst quentin written/directed movie i've yet seen (I haven't seen death proof). That said, I enjoyed it quite a bit.
I can see "worst written" because it may actually be, but I found the direction better than anything else he's done.
3 examples I loved in white
When German guy gutshots the sheriff then walks to his head and shoots his head then the entire crowd screams and scatters. Extremely good direction of a single scene
The bold bigass MISSISSIPPI is incredible. The most slavingest slaveland of all slavedom, presented as if walking through the gates of hell
Sam Jackson's face telling Django what was going to happen to him. Powerful stuff
you cray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Funny how you're right yet it was really good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I just thought it was too close to pure parody and even thought some of the jokes fell flat. It was closer imo to a blaxploitation parody than a spaghetti western homage. If it was a shred more serious I would have liked it a lot more. I also didn't really like the ending much.
It appears the humor and frivolity was for the purpose of lessening the inevitable backlash from those who get upset when they hear the word "nigger". The movie had a bunch of really subtle parts meant to counter any appearance of blacksploitation as well, like the half a second shot of Django's huge bulge in his pant leg and the fact that the only words he couldn't pronounce were "gang" and another similar one I don't remember. Also, the purpose of many of the jokes was just to make the whites look idiotic.
The movie probably could have been more serious if it was done by a black guy instead of a white guy because of idiots like Spike Lee who instead of jumping from a bridge like he should, he cries racism when he really just has no fucking clue what's going on.
Saw Déjà vu by Tony Scott yesterday and however badly it was written and directed, I enjoyed it from start to finish just because the story was pretty fresh. DW is always easy to watch.
This kind of shit in white please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
what? do you want him to put that fact that it was his least favorite Tarantino movie in white also, because they are basically the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketfours
edit: why doesn't FTR have spoiler tags? get on that gmml
It does
[spoiler][/spoiler ]
no space
The end was stupid yeah but I really enjoyed the rest of the movie. Not Tarantino's best.
Movies in theaters right now that are must see:
The Hobbit
Django Unchained
Zero Dark Thirty
Skyfall
Is Hobbit good? Haven't seen it yet
I've recently seen:
The Hobbit - Ass flattened after 3 hours but was disappointed when it ended.
Django - Good stuff from Tarantino. Again.
Silver Linings Playbook - Not bad for a comedy/drama/romance.
I think the ending is great
Cloud atlas is simply epic.
Cloud Atlas was a weird concept but fun to watch. My fav part was the credits.
Tonight I watched Zero Dark Thirty. Was slow at times but the last 30-40min was amazing.
Django is a lock for Best Picture. Among many awards, such as props and shit.
Both DiCaprio and Waltz for best supporting actor.
Waltz was great, Di Caprio was fine but not spectacular imo.
Comment on ending:
Spoiler:Also thought ending was a bit shit, although that depends on exactly what you consider the ending, but Waltz decision was out of character and arguably just stupid and pretty much spoiled the ending, the rest of which was fine.
I mean, the amount of time, effort and expense he'd gone to just to enable Django to get back his biatch was considerable. He had also seen many a slaver do sick shit in his time, even if not as graphic and sick as what he had now seen. He was also clearly a big picture guy and able to think strategically. So why would he risk everything, including the lives of himself and Django and Mrs Django, at the point when they have finally reached their objective and all they had to do was walk out the door, all for a bit of pride and/or some newly discovered moral code. But hey, it meant QT could get some hard core, satisfying, morally acceptable violence in.
Tarantino does a lot of things very well. Django doesn't even seem that difficult to make and I have to believe that's entirely on the back of Tarryteens talents.
I had a great time watching it.
Spoiler:About the German shrugging into a shotgun blast when he seemed to have 1 shot left. I didn't like it, either. It's my expectation that he'll try to fight, that he didn't was at the very least novel. And sometimes, novel is better than good.
What I really wanted was old sammy jackson to give a speech about how he had nothing, he was born a slave with no pockets and nothing in his belly and the good master gave him a hearth and home to tend.
Somehow spin it to the slave owners were being honorable in their enslavement of him, that he was genuinely better off for his stay in life. That they gave him a life, and only asked that he pledge his to them in return.
And then you shoot him in the knees.
lollllllllllllllllll
http://i.imgur.com/GUccJ.jpg
Anyone seen Gangster Squad? Is it anything to look forward to when it reaches us over here?
Flight is worth watching for the crash scene alone.
See Cloud Atlas, but for all that is sacred - read the novel first if you like reading. It is a masterpiece. Unfortunately, seeing the movie first will without a doubt take away from the experience.
Definitely L'ed OLQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Watched The Hobbit a few days ago. A great watch but my main problem was that you had no affinity with many of the dwarves, the dwarven king also looked too human and Bilbo coulda been cast been better (just compare him with the convincing hobbits from LOTR) - there's 2 more parts in which he can redeem himself to me though. But, once they reached the Goblin King and everything that followed, that was just super.
I read Hobbit twice and hated it both times, partly because I felt no affinity to any of the dwarves. I think I'll try the movie though
Yeah, the Goblin King skirmish was the most fun action sequence in recent memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
Wreck it Ralph was good.
I just started finishing Enter the Void by Gaspar Noé.
He's one of those directors I'm not sure I would recommend anyone to watch even though he is an indisputable genius and is shaping up to be one of the greatest directors of all time. However his movies are incredibly hard to watch. You could compare him to Arnovski (who I definitely wouldn't recommend to anyone) in the nihilism department, however with Noé you at least sense a litght at the end of the tunnel whereas Arnovski seems hellbound on dragging you into a downward spiral with no hope of escape.
If you're into technical cinema, you have to watch Irreversible and Void. I have never seen such effective use of selective focus, dolly zooms and superimposed cgi. There were scenes in Irreversible where just a camera movement made me jump up because I realized it was a $10000 shot that looked like a simple crane move. Where other films try to wow you with spectacular cgi, in these movies you might not even recognize it yet it's insanely well done.
I can't wait to watch Seul contre tous, but I think it would be a very bad life choice to marathon through Gaspar Noé movies... I'll give it a day or two.
Fair warning: If you even have a history of epilepsy in your family, you will definitely have a massive seizure. And if you don't you will still definitely have a massive seizure.
I started Enter the Void, and I just couldn't do it. Maybe I'll try again sometime, but it was just too abstract.
I've read the Hobbit now several times. I'm on the second time through reading it out loud (two kid #2). I would agree it's difficult to draw affinity to the dwarves. There are too many to create characters for each, and they only ones you really get to know are the fat one and Fili, one of the younger ones, none of the others really do jack shit. It's very reminiscent of the movie 13th Warrior, where you have this pack of supposed bad asses, but you never learn shit about any of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That said, I think there is a lot that I enjoy about the book. My favorite aspect is the play on classic "good" and "evil". It's refreshing to read something where you like... GO DWARVES!! And then... HEY fuck you dwarves... and then... Bilbo!? That's kind of a cunt thing to do, to take the MOST valuable thing, etc. All the other books tend to black-and-white things
Since Kingnat started quoting old Hobbit posts I'll do the same. I watched the Hobbit the other night and really wasn't impressed at all. It took nearly an hour to get things rolling with nothing really being established in that first bit and some scenes that I assume were thrown in there because they look cool in 3d (see: ridiculous circus scene in Bilbo's residence).Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
A lot of the CGI was too much and looked faulty. I get a movie like this obviously needs to rely heavily on CGI but I compare it to any of the LOTR movies and it's much worse. The villains looked too 'costumey' a lot of the time too. I don't know if it was poor CGI or poor makeup at fault there but I found myself distracted by it. The Goblin king's chin looked like stretched pixels as well.
Pretty much everything about Radagast bugged me, he seemed like a pointless addition to the story. Especially his whole, "I have a fast sled of rabbits so let me distract the orcs," then he proceeds to just go around the group in circles essentially contributing nothing at all.
I did like the riddle battle with Golumn, they did that scene well. I also liked it when Bilbo kills the orc about to execute Thorin, it was cool to watch and I don't know why. Probably because it was an exciting but believable attack coming from his character. But then Thorin's speech/hug at the end made me mad at the movie again.
Great looking cinematography and everything you would expect from the movie though. I probably rate it 6/10 and I was expecting to like it a lot more since I enjoyed the middle earth books when I was younger and though the LOTR trilogy was great.
Yay, you can't just watch it any time. A couple of weeks back I watched Last Action Hero in an Arnie marathon and thought how awesome it is that they would useQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
Death from Ingmar Bergman's Seventh Seal as a bad guy in a PG13 action movie, so I started rewatching Bergman films and one thing lead to another.
This is preferable over the more natural route of: Salo -> Eraserhead -> Visitor Q -> Void - which would probably end with you prying your skull open with a chisel and dumping your brain into a fryer.
Jamie Lee Curtis was great in this!
jk
I'll check it out. Steven King movies never disappoint.
You won't regret it. Great Movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCKXJNGzN8
I watched it last week and I wouldn't recommend it. The movie is riddled with clichés which makes it annoying and predictable, and the main character is just delivering his lines, not even acting, showing no commitment to the story or what is going in. Me and my friend just resorted to laughing at the movie to have some fun with it. Constantly predicting what is going to happen can be fun too, just makes me wonder what kind of crowd would genuinly like this movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerKing