Log in:  

Register

Movie Thread

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

21 Jan 2016 00:51

BullsFan22 wrote:If I ever get the chance, I'll ask Tarantino if he based some of the Basterds scenes on the old Yugoslavian Partisan films which focused mainly on the WWII resistance movements against the Nazis. I am almost certain they were, but i'd love to ask him if I could. Plus he seems like a good person.

Echoes wrote:He's actually mixing up everything that already has been done. ;)

Bingo.

That's what Tarantino does. His films are almost always based on "what's already been done."

I will admit, when I first saw Pulp Fiction in the theater, I was totally stunned. I'd never seen anything quite like it. I still remember walking out to the parking lot that night afterwards. Two other guys that I didn't know were walking to their cars as well. We just shook our heads in astonishment. There's were no words exchanged between us. There was nothing to say. We were floored.

But then I saw the (if I remember correctly) Japanese film that Tarantino clearly ripped off entirely when he created Pulp Fiction. It's a joke to suggest that he possesses anything original in his work. The movie that inspired Pulp Fiction has all the same scene changes, etc. I'll try to dig it up.

In his own words...

“I steal from every single movie ever made,” Tarantino once said in an interview with Empire magazine. “If my work has anything, it’s that I’m taking this from this and that from that and mixing them together.”
User avatar Jacques de Molay
Member
 
Posts: 306
Joined: 10 Oct 2015 21:17

21 Jan 2016 17:21

In fairness to Tarantino that is what makes a good director. Take the best ideas from other films and put them together to your own plot. The hard bit is doing it well. He does that most the time, especially initially. You have the people who create a lot of the film from scratch and maybe 4 or 5 scenes will be excellent and unique, and all the rest pretty bad. They are very rare as almost all that can be done has been done.

I think Lars Von Trier's Dogville was a good example of an original idea in film, airlifted from theatre and especially Brecht. Too bad it then got worse as it went on, and the story was quite bad. But even that was taken from other people,m maybe not going as far. Very, very few good films are ever unique.
Brullnux
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,358
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

Re:

21 Jan 2016 21:21

Brullnux wrote:In fairness to Tarantino that is what makes a good director. Take the best ideas from other films and put them together to your own plot. The hard bit is doing it well. He does that most the time, especially initially. You have the people who create a lot of the film from scratch and maybe 4 or 5 scenes will be excellent and unique, and all the rest pretty bad. They are very rare as almost all that can be done has been done.

I think Lars Von Trier's Dogville was a good example of an original idea in film, airlifted from theatre and especially Brecht. Too bad it then got worse as it went on, and the story was quite bad. But even that was taken from other people,m maybe not going as far. Very, very few good films are ever unique.


I much prefer Guy Ritchie's movies over Tarantino and for some odd reason he was called the "British Tarantino" when he first began directing. His "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" was masterful. Tarantino peaked with Pulp Fiction and it's been a steady parade of the same spiel ever since. His obsession with excessive use of the "n" word bothers me. As far as his acting, his appearance in any movie brings it's level of quality down depending on the amount of screen time he is given (or gives himself).

I just don't get the raves that he receives every time he releases a movie. It's not as if he's on the level of the Coen Brothers, Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese or Ridley Scott who are true auteurs of quality films. Tarantino isn't even in the same galaxy as these guys. He obviously has no problem getting the elite actors for his movies so I must be missing something.
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,311
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

Re:

22 Jan 2016 19:21

Brullnux wrote:In fairness to Tarantino that is what makes a good director. Take the best ideas from other films and put them together to your own plot. The hard bit is doing it well. He does that most the time, especially initially. You have the people who create a lot of the film from scratch and maybe 4 or 5 scenes will be excellent and unique, and all the rest pretty bad. They are very rare as almost all that can be done has been done.

I think Lars Von Trier's Dogville was a good example of an original idea in film, airlifted from theatre and especially Brecht. Too bad it then got worse as it went on, and the story was quite bad. But even that was taken from other people,m maybe not going as far. Very, very few good films are ever unique.


Lars creates some astonishingly beautiful films. The imagery he creates at times is stunning. When I went to see anti Christ I was stunned by the photography. The shots in the woods are amazing.
Tarantino IMO said everything he's going to say in Pulp Fiction its a brilliantly executed film but he has not got nowhere near it since.
ray j willings
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 18:15

23 Jan 2016 09:11

Dogville is a masterpiece and the finale, one of the best ever. Same as melancholia
I love von trier
User avatar jens_attacks
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,778
Joined: 08 Sep 2009 18:00

28 Feb 2016 22:15

Any Oscar thoughts? People or films you'd like to see win?

I'd like to see Tom Newman finally get an Oscar for scoring Bridge of Spies, though I am not sure he will, or even should here (should have about 5-8 nominations ago!).

Curious to see if anything political happens. I made some comments on here about Spike Lee's racism charges, but statistically, historically, Hollywood is still pretty white/male, as the report card and other studies showed. Hollywood likes to think it has an open mind, so if Chris Rock, or someone else, makes some blunt claims, I'm curious what the response from the crowd, and industry is.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-studio-scorecard-how-diversity-859668
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,200
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

01 Mar 2016 12:53

IMO the most significant question that he brought up is why are there separate categories for male and female actors? He compared it to sports, track and field specifically, and that men don't have any advantage in any way as they would in certain athletics so why are they only competing against actors of the same gender?
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,311
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

01 Mar 2016 14:37

anybody else think deadpool was a load of ****? 8.6 on IMDB is a travesty, closest i came to walking out of a cinema for a very long time.
Singer01
Member
 
Posts: 1,098
Joined: 18 Nov 2013 19:04

Re:

01 Mar 2016 15:53

Singer01 wrote:anybody else think deadpool was a load of ****? 8.6 on IMDB is a travesty, closest i came to walking out of a cinema for a very long time.


I was thinking about going to see it this week or weekend. Received a theatre gift card and haven't used it yet.
Is it that bad?
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,311
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

01 Mar 2016 15:58

From seeing things on the internet I get the feeling a lot of the praise for Deadpool is coming from people who probably don't give a crap about the film as long as it includes a load of smart alec comments, violence etc. basically adhering to the character of the comics. They probably couldn't care less about what's actually going on and the story, they went to see Deadpool and that's what was made. I was looking forward to going to see it but I'm not a massive comic fan (as in I like them but I don't buy or read them much) and I've decided to pass.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,429
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re:

01 Mar 2016 17:25

Angliru wrote:IMO the most significant question that he brought up is why are there separate categories for male and female actors? He compared it to sports, track and field specifically, and that men don't have any advantage in any way as they would in certain athletics so why are they only competing against actors of the same gender?


Because Hollywood is not theatre: films never cast women as men or vice versa. Mainstream, Oscar-winning female characters are different from their male counterparts. People in Hollywod like to have this distinction. If all female characters in big films are written crap in a particularly year, then they'll still get rewarded for acting. If all men parts are written crap, then they too get rewarded. If it were one prize it would be unfair for the actors of a particular gender, if this circumstance happened, as they will never win.

It also makes it easier for directors to pick people for their films, if they have a pick of 6 women who were Oscar-nominated rather than two, for example.

Furthermore, perhaps most importantly IMO, if there were an 'Overall Best Actor' then Hollywood, trying to be PC will probably alternate giving it to a man and a woman. It would be a fake prize.
Brullnux
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,358
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

Re: Re:

02 Mar 2016 03:00

Brullnux wrote:
Angliru wrote:IMO the most significant question that he brought up is why are there separate categories for male and female actors? He compared it to sports, track and field specifically, and that men don't have any advantage in any way as they would in certain athletics so why are they only competing against actors of the same gender?


Because Hollywood is not theatre: films never cast women as men or vice versa. Mainstream, Oscar-winning female characters are different from their male counterparts. People in Hollywod like to have this distinction. If all female characters in big films are written crap in a particularly year, then they'll still get rewarded for acting. If all men parts are written crap, then they too get rewarded. If it were one prize it would be unfair for the actors of a particular gender, if this circumstance happened, as they will never win.

It also makes it easier for directors to pick people for their films, if they have a pick of 6 women who were Oscar-nominated rather than two, for example.

Furthermore, perhaps most importantly IMO, if there were an 'Overall Best Actor' then Hollywood, trying to be PC will probably alternate giving it to a man and a woman. It would be a fake prize.

dunno that a "Best Overall Acting Performance" category would end up being fake... Jolie's "supporting actress" win in Girl Interrupted was a pretty major role, and possibly a better performance than Swank's 'Boys Don't Cry' or Spacey's performance in American Beauty...
A 'playoff' ballot between McConaughey, Leto, Blanchett and Nyong'o would have been well interesting
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,774
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re: Movie Thread

02 Mar 2016 20:19

The Academy ridiculed itself once again by rewarding Ennio Morricone at age 87 when they had snobbed him for over 40 years ... Just now because he's working for the despicable Weinstein, he's praised for perhaps the crappest music of his whole catalogue. I mean he's probably the greatest musician of the 20th century but since he always stayed in Italy and hardly speaks English, all his Genius works whether for his spaghetti westerns or others went unnoticed. They already seemed willing to apologised by giving an honorary award a few years back. Well I guess it's just Ennio Morricone honouring the Academy more than the Academy honouring Ennio Morricone. They could just consider themselves Lucky that Ennio accepted to take part in this whole circus.

How can an Academy award be a reference anyway. In my opinion if a film is awarded, these days, it's rather a negative sign. Though there are exceptions. Scorsese's Hugo - which got five Oscars - was pretty enjoyable and interesting, ethically speaking. Most of the time, it's just films for a little happy elite, pro-Zionist and Arabophobic and without any concern for the suffering of the common people. Hollywood traditionally always has been so, with a few exceptions.

Nothing to see, there.
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,015
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re: Movie Thread

02 Mar 2016 21:39

Echoes wrote:The Academy ridiculed itself once again by rewarding Ennio Morricone at age 87 when they had snobbed him for over 40 years ... Just now because he's working for the despicable Weinstein, he's praised for perhaps the crappest music of his whole catalogue. I mean he's probably the greatest musician of the 20th century but since he always stayed in Italy and hardly speaks English, all his Genius works whether for his spaghetti westerns or others went unnoticed. They already seemed willing to apologised by giving an honorary award a few years back. Well I guess it's just Ennio Morricone honouring the Academy more than the Academy honouring Ennio Morricone. They could just consider themselves Lucky that Ennio accepted to take part in this whole circus.

How can an Academy award be a reference anyway. In my opinion if a film is awarded, these days, it's rather a negative sign. Though there are exceptions. Scorsese's Hugo - which got five Oscars - was pretty enjoyable and interesting, ethically speaking. Most of the time, it's just films for a little happy elite, pro-Zionist and Arabophobic and without any concern for the suffering of the common people. Hollywood traditionally always has been so, with a few exceptions.

Nothing to see, there.


Quoted for truth. :)

Speaking of Scorsese, he's now working on his passion project, a movie called Silence based on a novel by Shūsaku Endō about the persecution of Christians in Japan during the Kakure Kirishitan epoch. I think it will be good.
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

21 Mar 2016 04:39

Wall-E will be my favorite animated movie forever!!!And Chicago is classic too.I'd love to see a Broadway Chicago Opera
DrewPowell
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 10:20

21 Mar 2016 13:10

Going into see Batman v Superman on Friday.

The critics embargo is still in place but a number of fans have seen the premiere. Looking at their reaction, it's been well received so far.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Movie Thread

21 Mar 2016 18:49

Echoes wrote:The Academy ridiculed itself once again by rewarding Ennio Morricone at age 87 when they had snobbed him for over 40 years ... Just now because he's working for the despicable Weinstein, he's praised for perhaps the crappest music of his whole catalogue.

Another quote for truth.

I do however think Bernard Herrmann was the best film composer of the 20th century, though Ennio is in the highest percentile as well.

Next up in Ennio's place, Thomas Newman, who has now been nominated 13 times over the last twenty-one years, and never won a statue (still behind Kevin O'Connell with 20 nominations, no wins). But he was nominated for the blase score to the blase film Bridge of Spies (just like his other recent blase scores), when Tom easily could have won several times years ago, before going for volume, and big films. He had such an original and beautiful sound. Now, because it's been mimicked to death, even he's all but abandoned it for nearly canned symphony music. Not bad mind you, just not of the same level. I would have selected Jóhann Jóhannsson for Sicario. I thought his work was the most original and fitting to the film.

Speaking of Bridge of Spies, I was a little surprised that Mark Rylance won for best supporting actor. While I think he did a fine job transforming into Rudolf Abel, he also gave what was pretty much a one-note performance. But he has a huge stage background with 3 Tony's and I suppose the Academy didn't want to be left far behind. I personally preferred both Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight, and Stallone in Creed, for showing more range, and carrying scenes they were in.

But hey, it's the Oscars. It's about pomp and cronyism. Lest they'd just announce the winner, and not have a big show.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,200
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

26 Mar 2016 08:58

agree about Rylance.
as a matter of fact i saw him yesterday when i rewatched The X-Files from 2008.
He plays a psychic priest, but in fact he plays almost the exact same character as in Bridge of Spies, that of a naive guy who's just a sort of a passive subject to some exterior, larger power (God in The XFiles, the Russians in BoS). Makes some clever one-liners where one has to 'read between the lines' to understand what he really means (again, he does similar in Bridge of Spies). And that's it.
So clever casting from Spielberg, rather than an out-of-this-world-performance from Rylance.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

26 Mar 2016 13:39

gooner wrote:Going into see Batman v Superman on Friday.

The critics embargo is still in place but a number of fans have seen the premiere. Looking at their reaction, it's been well received so far.

Is this a spoiler OK thread? I'd like to comment, but I need to refer to events in the film.
Check 'em!
User avatar CheckMyPecs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 14 Mar 2016 09:24
Location: SW Europe

26 Mar 2016 14:04

i just watched Mark Webb's latest two spiderman movies.

must say i found them pretty compelling and entertaining allround.
good cast, sympathetic acting, good dialogs, decent amount of well-timed humor, good special effects, good action. Even the drama scenes I found pretty convincing for the most part.
In any case, MUCH more interesting than Raimi's trilogy.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Back to top