Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Movies: Talk About What You've Seen Lately--Part 3 Movies: Talk About What You've Seen Lately--Part 3

12-27-2015 , 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggerboat
Sometimes I envision Tarantino's entire movie making process as - "wouldn't it be cool if this happened".
He was interviewed on Howard a few weeks ago and basically said that was his method. At least when he starts to get the germ of an idea, anyway.

For H8, he said the idea came from the popular plot line in westerns where a mysterious figure comes to town, and you basically don't know what the characters intentions are and if he's a good guy or a bad guy. For H8, it was essentially - wouldn't it be cool if we trapped a bunch of the characters in a room for an entire movie.
12-27-2015 , 09:04 PM
I feel like that's how a lot of movies are made today. In my (and others) review of Sicario, I said that it seemed like a lot of cool scenes loosely tied together to make a movie.

That is what sells.
12-27-2015 , 09:40 PM
I really liked margin call.

there was a hbo original docudrama about the collapse that I really enjoyed called "too big to fail".

couldn't believe how much I liked it considering I know nothing about how the economy works (tho maybe that's why I liked it so much as I couldn't get upset by any errors or dramatic license as I don't know enough to notice them whereas a film about poker for instance would probably drive me insane cuz I'm so knowledgeable about the real thing).
12-28-2015 , 12:09 AM
watched Margin Call due to this thread and liked it more than the Big Short
12-28-2015 , 01:04 AM
Wow, I'm really surprised at how wide my interpretation and appreciation for Hateful Eight is different than most posters here. It is possible that the intermission and the split in the movie made a larger impact on how well thought out it was, but...

Spoiler:
The first half is kind of a hiccup of fast and slow, where really, any appearance of SLJ moved the story, and the second half, you just knew that violence was going to go crazy.

But, the theme of this movie was no one was honest except for The Hangman, which was shown by two scenes in particular: when it was revealed that the note from Lincoln was fake, Major Warren asked "Are you hurt?" ... "yeah." And that was probably the only line of truth in the entire movie.

The next part was the whole lecture about frontier justice, and it was easy to see and understand the Hangman's philosophy and how he didn't just kill people for money, but let the courts figure it out, which was interesting considering that lecture came from the other hangman. In fact, if you think of it, John Ruth is the only one that didn't try to kill anyone. And isn't it funny how he called it out that someone was in cahoots with the girl? It was because he was so honest that he was able to see this.

Warren was kind of the opposite. His lies were so extreme and so vivid, that he was able to use those lies to somehow pester the other characters to the point that, even though they were all lying all the time, he was able to pull out some of the truth.

My buddy and I was left with a lot to talk about, and a lot to analyze. Just consider the fact that the only two survivors (who really aren't, but "survivor" being last people talking), are the two who were accused of being on cahoots at the beginning. Was it pure irony that The Sheriff was the one who tried to drink the coffee and got off the hook? What if that didn't happen, would there be another excuse for him to be pulled away from the lineup on the wall?

I don't know. We were left with a lot to think about and a lot to discuss. I'm not some huge movie buff, but he definitely is what you would call a filmy to a pretty sick level. The only fault we were able to really think of on it was the guy under the floorboards. He really should have went for broke.

This was a special movie in my opinion -- I certainly couldn't see myself analyzing Star Wars for hours over beers.

Last edited by daveT; 12-28-2015 at 01:31 AM. Reason: spoiled
12-28-2015 , 01:19 AM
You really need to put that entire post in spoilers
12-28-2015 , 02:00 AM
After seeing Jodorowsky's Dune I really want to see Jodorowsky's Dune
12-28-2015 , 02:49 AM
Junun - I'll just copy and paste the synopsis and comment on it.

Quote:
Musician Jonny Greenwood travels to Rajasthan, where he performs with a multitude of Indian musicians.
It's a wonderful collaboration of multiple cultures coming together to form beautiful music. I didn't know this going in but it's directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. The runtime is only 53 minutes and it goes flying by. The cinematography is stunning, optimizing drone cameras and such. The film has so much energy and moves along beautifully. I recommend it if you enjoy music documentaries. It's light on narrative, nobody ever stops and explains what happens. More of a picture is worth a thousand words kind of movie.
12-28-2015 , 02:52 AM
People can umm and ahhh over whether QT is the best. You have all pretty much illustrated the fact he is the greatest film maker on this planet!

Every film he has made has been at the very least, solid. Death Proof was his worst, but this movie is still very good/entertaining, and as per usual, very well written.
12-28-2015 , 03:59 AM
woah back up the hyperbole train broseph.
let's not get carried away and forget about the coens, fincher, etc.
12-28-2015 , 04:15 AM
Are we talking all time here, or alive and active now?

If the former none of those are top 3, if we're talking later I suppose all 3 of them are in the conversation for being on the best of list.
12-28-2015 , 04:38 AM
he said on the planet so I assumed he meant currently alive.
do u really think I would make a list of all time goat film makers and not include kubrick?
12-28-2015 , 04:58 AM
Well, I would certainly hope not.
12-28-2015 , 07:23 AM
QT is fun and all, but probably doesn't make my cut for the top 25 director of all time list...
12-28-2015 , 12:11 PM
Is Tarantino even in the top 10 of directors alive?
Scorsese, Coens, Fincher, Haneke, Coppola (although he's not active), Linklater, González Iñárritu, Cuarón, Godard, Lynch, Malick, Nolan, Scott, ...
12-28-2015 , 01:17 PM
How do you compare David Fincher with Quentin Tarantino? Fincher's work is much more varied but he doesn't write. Tarantino writes all his own stuff (apart from Jackie Brown) but his films are almost all long, incredibly violent and non-linear. With dark humour. Both guys have a close to 0% turkey rate (I hated Death Proof but it has pretty good reviews). Jafar Panahi, who I'd add to that list, makes meaningful films ... how do you compare him to Quentin Tarantino? How about James Cameron who writes and directs incredibly popular films? He's not as critically acclaimed, and I wouldn't consider him as 'good as Tarantino' but ... writing and directing films as varied and successful as Aliens, Terminator(s), Titanic and Avatar is incredibly impressive. Look at how great Terminator 2 was in Cameron's hands and how bad Terminator 3-5 were. Film studios, directors, writers etc. had massive incentives to make good Terminator films but they couldn't reproduce Cameron's magic. Cameron made a great Alien sequel, Fincher didn't. Do I rate James Cameron higher as a director than David Fincher? No I don't. But I think it's defensible.
12-28-2015 , 01:39 PM
The Revenant, pretty damn good. Well done Iñárritu, Dicaprio and Hardy!
12-28-2015 , 02:48 PM
Anyone ever seen Heartless? Never seen a film like it. I have no idea if it was good or bad, no idea if I liked it or not. Its classed as Horror by default, but its not a horror film, thats just the closest genre you could put it into.

When you watch it, you think, this is meh at best, but then you see the end and it makes you rethink the entire film, and I think it turns the film from meh/poor, to pretty good/needs a rewatch to actually know. A film made for discussion though, as there is a lot left up to interpretation
12-28-2015 , 05:17 PM
Just saw The H8full Eight. Some great scenes but not a great movie. Was too long and pretty boring until just prior to the Intermission. Then the action got pretty good in gory QT style. One of the first questions I ask myself after seeing a new movie for the first time is "do I want to see it again?" The answer here is not particularly but would probably stop if I landed on it channel surfing.

For me Tarantino peaked way early and has been going down slowly but surely and I would put this in the lower echelon of his movies. I rate his movies like so:
Great
Pulp Fiction
Resevoir Dogs
Very Good
Kill Bills
Death Proof
Good
Jackie Brown
Okay
H8full Eight
Meh
Django Unchained
I hated it!
Inglorious Basterds
12-28-2015 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enrique
Is Tarantino even in the top 10 of directors alive?
Scorsese, Coens, Fincher, Haneke, Coppola (although he's not active), Linklater, González Iñárritu, Cuarón, Godard, Lynch, Malick, Nolan, Scott, ...
If we look at quality per movie as opposed to churning out a lot of movies and making a few great ones along the way, Tarantino is borderline top 5, definitely top 10.

He's also the screenwriter of his films (they start from a blank page), which puts him in a different category than many of the names you listed.
12-28-2015 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losing all
After seeing Jodorowsky's Dune I really want to see Jodorowsky's Dune
It would've been complete crap, let's be honest. Dude is creative, but was all over the place.

Movies in the pre-production stage can be the coolest thing of all-time, because we can imagine some really awesome stuff. Actually making the movie usually brings it back down to reality. Fat ass Orson Welles couldn't even handle wine commercials at that point.

To take a recent example, I'm sure Jupiter Ascending sounded like a huge, amazing blockbuster when it was being storyboarded.
12-28-2015 , 05:46 PM
Saw the new Star Wars Christmas Eve.

Enjoyed it, didn't think it was great. I was never a huge Star Wars fan, I think I've seen three or four of the first six. I don't think it's necessary to follow this plot, though seeing 1 and 2 of the original set would probably help.

Seemed to be a lot of a replay of the first movie. I think it's old enough to not warrant spoilers, but I'll be cautious:

Spoiler:

Maybe that's on purpose, paying homage with the way characters were rushing from crisis to crisis. There's a Death Star!

Too many humorous one-liner quips that often didn't work, often as callbacks.

Felt like the manner in which the original characters were revealed was pretty hokey. The only one I really enjoyed was when they got to the Millennium Falcon. (No, that's a piece of junk!).

Total lack of story how Po survived (oh, I woke up at night). Well then, you'll be fine on a desert planet without water or our jacket for warmth.

I didn't like Han and Leia's son's character. The bad guy in Star Wars doesn't cry! Meh, I never felt as if he was as menacing as Darth.


Overall, I think I have mostly minor criticisms; it's not trying to be Citizen Kane, and that's totally all right. A fun, fairly mindless action film. Worth a watch, not something to get all jazzed up about.
12-28-2015 , 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbaseball
Just saw The H8full Eight. Some great scenes but not a great movie. Was too long and pretty boring until just prior to the Intermission. Then the action got pretty good in gory QT style. One of the first questions I ask myself after seeing a new movie for the first time is "do I want to see it again?" The answer here is not particularly but would probably stop if I landed on it channel surfing.

For me Tarantino peaked way early and has been going down slowly but surely and I would put this in the lower echelon of his movies. I rate his movies like so:
Great
Pulp Fiction
Resevoir Dogs
Very Good
Kill Bills
Death Proof
Good
Jackie Brown
Okay
H8full Eight
Meh
Django Unchained
I hated it!
Inglorious Basterds
I wanted to add that I found Goggins' performance to be incredibly uneven. I thought both his lines and the way he delivered them in the first half (stagecoach) were ludicrously bad. But once the action started in the second half his performance was outstanding. I found it odd how he seemed so good and so bad in the same movie.
12-28-2015 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by domer2
If we look at quality per movie as opposed to churning out a lot of movies and making a few great ones along the way, Tarantino is borderline top 5, definitely top 10.

He's also the screenwriter of his films (they start from a blank page), which puts him in a different category than many of the names you listed.
Eh - not sure why QT being the screenwriter actually is a benefit to his movies. I would argue that is actually hurts him as a director as opposed to those other directors people have listed who aren't screenwriter/directors. I think that you could argue that a good director is a "rewriter" of the script in that they don't always stick to what's written on the page and enable some good revisions via improvisation and CUTTING UNNECESSARY SCENES that make the movie itself better. But it doesn't work that way for QT since he is both screenwriter and director. I feel like he's much more devoted to staying strictly to what is on the page since he wrote it.

Quote:
If you're an actor, don't expect to improvise. Ever. "You hire an actor to learn the lines and say them," Tarantino says.
12-28-2015 , 07:02 PM
with how tight he writes his scripts and the style of films he makes expecting or wanting to improvise makes no sense.

      
m