Movie Thread

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

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.

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.”

 

[Brullnux]

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.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

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.

 

[ray j willings]

Re:

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.

 

[jens_attacks]

Dogville is a masterpiece and the finale, one of the best ever. Same as melancholia
I love von trier

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

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

 

[Angliru]

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?

 

[Singer01]

anybody else think deadpool was a load of sh!te? 8.6 on IMDB is a travesty, closest i came to walking out of a cinema for a very long time.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

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?

 

[King Boonen]

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.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

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.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Echoes]

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.

 

[BigMac]

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.

 

[DrewPowell]

Wall-E will be my favorite animated movie forever!!!And Chicago is classic too.I'd love to see a Broadway Chicago Opera

 

[gooner]

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.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

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.

 

[sniper]

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.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

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.

 

[sniper]

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.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Re:

Wall-E will be my favorite animated movie forever!!!

Absolutely LOVE Wall-E!

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

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.

It was decent at best, nothing special. Definitely not as bad as the critical response is. Snyder made it more for the fans than the critics. The negative reviews didn't put the fans off as it was the highest opening superhero movie ever in the US and Canada. I thought Affleck was quite good. I would like to see him have a go solely at his own Batman franchise.

It was a bit of slow burner at the start before it came to life in the latter stages of the film.

The thing about any superhero movies(and in particular any Batman reboot) from now on is they are going to measured against Nolan's excellent Batman trilogy.

They'll all likely come up well short when measuring against that yardstick.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

It was decent at best, nothing special. Definitely not as bad as the critical response is. Snyder made it more for the fans than the critics. The negative reviews didn't put the fans off as it was the highest opening superhero movie ever in the US and Canada. I thought Affleck was quite good. I would like to see him have a go solely at his own Batman franchise.

It was a bit of slow burner at the start before it came to life in the latter stages of the film.

The thing about any superhero movies(and in particular any Batman reboot) from now on is they are going to measured against Nolan's excellent Batman trilogy.

They'll all likely come up well short when measuring against that yardstick.

I'm not going to go see it based on the critics reviews. While I like Superhero movies and both Batman and Superman in particular, the film needs to stand on its own and it sounds like this one doesn't really and only those actually invested in the culture and comic books will really enjoy it. The Nolan films were brilliant, all of them, which makes me wonder why they decided to make another Batman (albeit, with Superman) film so soon afterwards.

 

[Starstruck]

Great movie!
The Big Short
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgqG3ITMv1Q

O.K. I thought "The Wolf of Wall St." was a comedy too.

 

[Echoes]

It's a bit outdated now but I recently saw an interesting comment by Roy Dupuis about the Canadophobia in "The Revenant".

Roy Dupuis is a French-speaking Ontarian-born Canadian. His father is a Francophone Ontarian and his mother is a Quebecker. The family moved to Quebec in his childhood.

http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/22/the-revenant-reaction-de-roy-dupuis_n_9057998.html

Bloody and ruthless 19th century French Canadians in Alejandro Iñarritsu's The Revenant, nothing less was needed to make Roy Dupuis angry. The actor of Quebec who had to play a role in the sixth feature film by the Mexican director judges it a bad and anti-French Canadian film.

As Huffington Post Quebec revealed in October 2014 the producers of "The Revenant" were seeking Roy Dupuis in order to impersonate the character Toussaint, a wood trapper in Western Canada of French heritage, an offer that he eventually turned down. The role was then given to actor Fabrice Adde.

I had asked to read the script before making my mind. They did not want to, so that I refuse to take part in the shooting. It's the way I take my roles today anyway. In order to embark on a project I must agree with the story, otherwise too bad!

Said Roy Dupuis as an aside to a press day for the film "Là où Attila passe".

A decision that the actor does not regret. After recently seeing The Revenant at the theatre Roy Dupuis said he was outraged at how the French Canadians were depicted.

I did well not to get involved in such a work. When I realised how the French trappers were treated, I found it downright unbearable. They have the worst of roles.

He said.

A historically inaccurate film

The Revenant - twelve nominations for the next Oscar ceremony - is a wild western that was shot in the Canadian Big North. Rooted in the 19th century this 130 million dollar production comes back on Hugh Glass' vengeance, impersonated by Leonardo Di Caprio (in contention for the Oscar for Best Actor).

I really wasn't keen on this film. As far as the background story is concerned some absolutely nonsensical events occur. I hope it won't win the Oscar for best screenplay because the tale is a bit like nothing goes right. There's no credibility in this vengeance story.

One particular shot shocked the actor, the one in which several Amerindians are found entangled, hanged to a tree. A note in French makes no doubt about the identity of the perpetrators.

You could hardly see them during the film but when they are seen it is in order to picture them as ugly barbarians. The French Canadians are those who rape, who hang, who own sexual slaves.

Beside the dubious depiction of our ancestors who came to explore Canada, the feature film is historically inaccurate since according to Dupuis, the Anglo-Saxons are the one who were rather merciless towards the Amerindian communities in North America.

The French came with the mission to make alliance with the First Nations. I'm not saying there were no bullies among the French but most of them married Amerindian women. They raised families, which created a mixed people that we call the French Canadians. Along comes Iñárritu filming them massacring the First people. By contrast, the Americans whose mission it was to conquer lands, have nothing to blame. It's downright stupid.

In Dupuis' opinion the fact that the director of Babel cared to make it clear that the murderers were not Americans is far from being insignificant.

The film is meant to be based on the true story of an American trapper. So why didn't the director show the murders that were committed by the Americans? Probably in order not to shock nor hurt them, he preferred insulting history.

The history part about the French coming to make alliance with Amerindians and the Brits coming to conquer lands is nothing but the truth. And obviously it does not make me wish to watch the film. Brave Roy Dupuis!

Dupuis also narrated an interesting documentary about Amerindians called "L'empreinte", last year. He talked about it on the "Tout le monde en parle" talk-show: here (with ENG subs)