Wrong

inglorious basterds: juvenile wwii fanfic. i probably would have loved it when i was 14. guy who played the nazi was really good though.

death proof: lol

kill bill: there might be a watchable 1.5 hr movie in here. might. at four hours it's ****ing absurd.

jackie brown: i guess this isn't completely awful.

I'm bad with words, this surely won't capture what I precisely mean to say, but..

Phildo is sadly spot on on Tarantino. After I watched Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction I was absolutely sure he's on path to GOAT, Kill Bill made me reconsider (entertaining watch but why all the unnecessary bull****, could easily toss half of the footage) and Death Proof... 95% of the film is really, really, really mundane and boring talking. I'd never believe he could do a thing like that before I watched it.

IB, again, was funny but nothing to come back to. He should have trimmed this one, too.

Fincher seems like a director who has all the tools but not so much to share with the world? Fight Club was obviously fantastic, other movies of his I've seen convinced me of his technical brilliance and nothing else. Seems like he needs a great book to work with.

Whenever I watch a Coen bros. film I can't pierce through it. Something's always missing to me, but I suspect it really may be _my_ fault in this case, due to the fact that some people who's taste in films I usually share seem to love them. Everyone's on their nuts nowadays.

Aronofsky uses cheap tricks and lacks depth, he doesn't belong with these. Requiem for a dream felt manipulative from the start and got worse every minute, hate it when a director drags me to a feeling this way. Black Swan was slightly less lol in that regard

Nolan best current director imo.

Going forward:

Nolan
Tarantino (he has the upside, he might still pull an all-time great)
Coen bros./Fincher



old men aren't going forward






Aronofsky

I just rewatched Rain Man again tonight.... something that caught my attention that I never noticed before.

At the beginning before Charlie ever meets Raymond in adulthood, people are going over their Dad's Will and Charlie only gets the Rose Bushes. Charlie then goes off on a tirade about how an unnamed source gets $3 million dollars and he says, "He gets $3 million, but I got the rose bushes. I definitely got the rose bushes." Did Charlie learn that 'definitely' phrase from Raymond or was it vice versa? Raymond says it all the time in the movie, but when Raymond was sent away Charlie was very very young. Did Charlie use 'definitely' in his vocabulary at a young age?

Kill Bill is amazing. Death Proof sucks. Inglorious Basterds mostly awesome, possibly too much talking in it. Jackie Brown good.

wrong

i agree that a big problem with basterds is that it's in dire need of editing like kill bill, but that pales in comparison to the fact that it's the movie equivalent of those comic books where superman punches out hitler except 70 years later when everyone knows you shouldn't be doing that stupid ****. i was embarrassed watching it.

i'm convinced that the worst thing to happen to tarantino movies is that he became a huge success. now everyone just blows him no what awful garbage he produces so not only does he think that any random bull**** he thinks up would make the greatest movie of all time, it's all way too long to boot.

Kill Bill is awful

Tarantino is overrated

false. kill bill is amazing.

basterds is one of the worst movies i've ever seen. And I think 90% of that is BJ Novak. God he sucks so bad in everything but the early office seasons. He stands out like a sore thumb in Basterds, and he's a big player in the final scene. He looks so out of place next to Pitt. Embarrassing choice.

IB was awesome, you guys are haters. Kill Bill also gets haters furious. Tarantino is still A+.

you obviously don't know how hard it is to find a jewish actor in hollywood these days..

Was reading some of Deadspin Drew's "Dadspin" stuff this morning, such as this article on raising kids and the internet: http://deadspin.com/5920184/know-you...ng?tag=dadspin

How terrifying must it be to be a parent right now AND be aware of what is available to your children's virgin eyes on the internet? (I'm sure there's some of you here). There's obviously a difference between your 16yo stumbling upon goatse and your 6yo stumbling upon it, but neither seems rather desirable.

Like when I was growing up, the internet was probably just as scary, but it wasn't nearly as accessible. Plus, everyone having PCs and easy access to the internet didn't really even become a thing until I was 10-12ish. Google image search didn't exist and like Drew points out in his article, there was a bit of a lockstep progression of being exposed to terrible things. I don't remember stumbling across anything awful until I was well into my teens, and even then it's nothing compared to the horrors you can see how when googling something innocent.

What if your kid happens to watch the Daniel Pearl video? Or the icepick sicko that recently got caught? I mean, that **** would **** with me (thankfully I've seen neither clip). I can't even imagine what it'd do to the psyche of a 12-year-old.

I have some friends on their way to being knee-deep in this **** and they're struggling with the same stuff. They don't want to be authoritarian dickhead nazi parents who raise their children in a protective bubble, but at the same time they are FULLY AWARE of how easy it is to find some crazy **** online.

My parents had absolutely no tech savvy (although presently they are easily top 2 percentile in technological ability of people over 65), and I easily out-maneuvered them if they tried to block or restrict anything. I assume my eventual cursed offspring won't have the same luxury. My 13yo cousin actually called me up the other day asking for help in evading the content filters/parental controls my uncle placed on his PC so he could "install some violent games that really aren't so bad" (after he told me what the games were, I sort of agree, assuming this was actually his true intent). I felt like the biggest grown-up ******* ever when I said, "I can't do that. Your dad put them there for your own good!"

Kill Bill is amazing

Where do people draw the line with the wussification of kids? Why on one hand do people complain about how children are being coddled too much and on the other say the internet is an evil scary place. I'm not sure if it matters more what they see or what kind of parenting they have had up to the point of seeing 2 girls 1 cup. I say let them have goatse.

Seems like Drew's article (and his editorials in general) are becoming more spiteful and more like the 'old man journalist' that deadspin originally set out to destroy.

LOL Karak (Catholics?), who gives a f? I obv wouldn't let them see bad stuff on purpose, but if they see it, they see it, not going to ruin their lives. Even with the horrible stuff, most kids would prob just not comprehend what they are watching rather than having their psyches destroyed or whatever. Only concern I would have is them getting in trouble for bringing stuff to school or repeating it there.

uhh you'd have no issue with your kid stumbling on something like the daniel pearl video at age 10-12? you think this would have no negative effects on him? lol?

im totally not for the "wussification" of kids and obv teenagers are gonna teenager, but im talking about kids younger than that.

i dont understand the catholics reference.

What negative effects?

is this a serious question? you dont think a 10-year-old might have issues coping with watching a bunch of hooded men slowly saw a man's head off while he's screaming?

I would use the Daniel Pearl video as a teachable moment regarding how dumb religion is.

Seems religious types are moar likely to be concerned about protecting their kids virginal eyes. No negative effects? Not sure I would go that far, but not enough for me to be worry about. Lotta kids don't really comprehend death. Even if understand what they are watching, what do you think is going to happen?

Yes, it was a serious question. I don't understand what the negative effects could be.

lolrat

ah yes, of course. all american "religious types" are catholic.

i mean, maybe im wrong about child-development or freudian stuff is all wizardy now, but to the best of my psych 205 recollection, exposure to such content while the brain is in certain developmental stages can have long-term effects...

obviously it's a far different situation, but consider the grave impact molestation and other inappropriate sexual contact has on kids at a young age and manifests itself as they develop and grow older. obviously getting molested or raped is always a very traumatizing thing, but the long-term effects of when it happens to a child are far different than when it happens to someone who is already past child developmental stages.

im not pretending to be a psych expert here, but this is how ive always understood it. i'd invite SGT RJ to comment, but im not sure she'd be so receptive to engaging the people in this thread haha. is my understanding flawed? genuine question.

Please give me real life examples of negative effects that happen once you watch a murder video online.

I think baptizing babies and saddling children with lifelong guilt by teaching them how they're all going to hell is more dangerous than seeing a random horrible video.