Rate The Last Movie You Watched - This Thread Took 12 Years To Make Edition - General

[QUOTE=coyote93;49463587][sp] I feel like that makes little sense, since he could have tried to sweet-talk to her when he first captured her, and convinced her then. Instead of treating her like shit, and then offering her training after he had done things that guaranteed would have turned her against him. [/sp] But yeah, seems like I interpreted the movie different than you guys, so no point in arguing about.[/QUOTE] [sp]He didn't know the extent of her powers when first detained, only that she could withstand his force mind-rape. It was only once she managed to break out he realised 'Damn okay so maybe she's really powerful', which is proven even further to him in the lightsaber battle. With the history in the star wars universe of corrupting good people to the dark side, it makes a lot of sense to gain allies instead of always defeating enemies.[/sp]

[QUOTE=coyote93;49463426]Star Wars: The Force Awakens [B]4/10[/B] Meh, what a load of crap. The only things enjoyable about it were the scenery and Harrison Ford, and even then Ford felt kinda forced most of the time. Minor spoilers [sp] And what the hell, both Rey and Finn can just pick up light-sabers and duel with a half trained sith with no former experience with the weapons? And, Rey Defeats Kylo in a 1v1 duel with no knowledge in how to set up a force shield? It makes no sense. [/sp][/QUOTE] this criticism keeps on cropping up, and it's unfounded. let me list the basics [sp]- rey knows how to fight, she carries a spear on her planet and grew up having to defend herself. completely plausible that she knows how to use a sword-like weapon. - kylo was wounded and, as pointed out, didn't want to straight out kil her immediately - if you watched the fight attentively, rey is backing up the whole time and kylo is whooping her ass until the final moment - rey strikes him down with one big blow, its not like she masterfully out-performed him in terms of light saber fighting. - kylo isn't a fully trained warrior, it's reasonable to assume he isn't a saber-wielding pro. - reys past is vague, and she might have past experience with the force. this point has yet to be developed, so no point criticizing it just yet. [/sp] this argument better not crop up again, im getting sick of it

Hateful 8, in 70mm was one of the best filmic experiences I've ever had. 9/10 easily. Really well written dialogue, great acting, some amazing camera work, a return to old school style of shooting. This was his best film since Reservoir Dogs by a country mile. It was smart, it was self aware, but not too much, it was tense from the first moment on and until the credits rolled. The bulk of the film being location locked actually served the film really well. If you didn't like the Hateful 8, do you even like movies?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49463679]Hateful 8, in 70mm was one of the best filmic experiences I've ever had. 9/10 easily. Really well written dialogue, great acting, some amazing camera work, a return to old school style of shooting. This was his best film since Reservoir Dogs by a country mile. It was smart, it was self aware, but not too much, it was tense from the first moment on and until the credits rolled. The bulk of the film being location locked actually served the film really well. [B]If you didn't like the Hateful 8, do you even like movies?[/B][/QUOTE] this isn't really fair to say because tarantino movies aren't for everyone, disliking one in particular doesn't make you a bad movie goer

[QUOTE=Bathtub;49463686]this isn't really fair to say because tarantino movies aren't for everyone, disliking one in particular doesn't make you a bad movie goer[/QUOTE] no and it's a bit of an exaggeration but I feel in some ways it rings true. Between the writing and character development, of which it's second to none in terms of films, there's nothing to complain about. The characters are deep and well fleshed out and you get to know more about them every time they open their mouth. The dialogue is seinfeld-esque, in the sense it's always been about real life, and not about the plot to a movie, which is why his characters speak so well, and can mean so much to the audience. The camera work and lighting, from a gaffers stand point, are literally the best they could be for what that movie wants to be. There really isn't any room to improve for the DOP in his work on a film like that. Just everything from script, to production, to lighting, to the entirely practical special effects set up, this is really a film that I would find hard to have someone watch and not see what is essentially, the artistry of film on the same levels of Coppola or Hitchcock. That's the era he belongs to, and sure, you can like movies if Justin Lin directed them or whoever, but not liking a Tarantino comes down to 1) not understanding his absolute mastery of the craft and 2) not liking his personality that shines through in his work so abundantly. Fair enough to #2.

i've just booked the tickets for the 70mm showing, for me and my friends. the movie isn't out until the 29th and we're going to see it the next day 3 weeks, i must resist

I checked the listings and fuck me there's only two more days to see it in 70mm I gotta nab a buddy and go after work soon!

I'm seeing the 70mm cut on Friday, I am dying with anticipation.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;49462522]it's that I never give a shit about his characters. To say he's an emotionless director would be stupid, but I never connect with the characters on any emotional level.[/QUOTE] All of Tarantino's characters have some level of the surreal in them (much like most of his movies), to identify or emotionally connect with them completely is pretty difficult for anyone. I would say he's the opposite of a emotionless director, he puts a surreal amount of emotion into each character and that's the part of his films I like most.

[QUOTE=simkas;49462457]I don't think you should be watching Tarantino movies if you don't like long dialogue scenes. Cause that's like, what all of his movies are.[/QUOTE] Not really, I enjoy his older movies a lot more. Better paced in my opinion. One of my very favourite films ever is a Tarantino film. It also has a lot of dialogues, but it's not redundant. [editline]6th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KlaseR;49462611]Tarantino is one of the best writers out there, especially when it comes to dialogue. Saying you dislike his dialogues suggests you simply don't recognize good cinema.[/QUOTE] You've just insulted me. I don't dislike his dialogues, I just think they're stretched for too long. The thing with Tarantino dialogues, is that every line is emphasized with another one to make sure the spectator gets the idea. Redundant is the word, like I mentioned. I'm pretty sure you could cut one sentence out of two and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It's great that he knows dialogues are his best asset, but it's a bit hard for me to enjoy a film that has this much of it... and little else (the violence was intense but it's not pictured as long as you guys imply; violent scenes are very brief). Also, you're a dick for telling others who disagree with you that they can't recognize good cinema. I am fucking offended. Fuck.

Saw a buncha shit [B]Appaloosa (2008)[/B] A western directed by and starring Ed Harris, who plays a lawman-for-hire with his partner Viggo Mortensen. Classic western style save for the violence, which is very raw. Not that there's a lot of blood and gore, it's more that it is very unhollywood-like and cynical (?), in a good way. Viggo Mortensen is a total beast, and I love his character arc, just as much as I love the overall plot development. It's also, oddly enough, really funny at times. Hell, I'm tempted to say I liked this more than True Grit or 3:10 to Yuma. I'd recommend this based on Viggo's mustache alone [b]Warrior (20011)[/b] It's exactly the kind of movie it wants to be. Which is not a very deep or complex film, but a really emotional one. Christ, Nick Nolte's performance was just heartbreaking. Don't have much to say about it other than go watch it. [b]Star Wars: The Force Awakens[/b] (finally) I can't say I didn't like it, it nailed almost everything. It's more than Star Wars even needed (<- pretty sure someone said exactly this earlier in this thread but suck it it's my quote now), and although I'd say it doesn't come [I]too[/I] close to the OT, I'll gladly throw it in the rotation. I don't get the complaints about it being a New Hope remake. I feel like the statement only holds up if you look at the very basics of its plot structure with little regard for the way it branches out. Yes, the settings are similar and the themes remain, but if anything, I was more annoyed by the little references than the premise itself. Because the plot was even more unique than Star Wars needed (<- haha check it out I just used it twice lol rekt)

[QUOTE=Loadingue;49464257]Not really, I enjoy his older movies a lot more. Better paced in my opinion. One of my very favourite films ever is a Tarantino film. It also has a lot of dialogues, but it's not redundant. [editline]6th January 2016[/editline] You've just insulted me. I don't dislike his dialogues, I just think they're stretched for too long. The thing with Tarantino dialogues, is that every line is emphasized with another one to make sure the spectator gets the idea. Redundant is the word, like I mentioned. I'm pretty sure you could cut one sentence out of two and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It's great that he knows dialogues are his best asset, but it's a bit hard for me to enjoy a film that has this much of it... and little else (the violence was intense but it's not pictured as long as you guys imply; violent scenes are very brief). Also, you're a dick for telling others who disagree with you that they can't recognize good cinema. I am fucking offended. Fuck.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way, I didn't mean to be insulting. I don't see the redundancy in his dialogues, they seem to work fine as they are. They are often climactic and tense, and that requires slow and subtle build up. And I don't believe there's anything wrong with too much talking as long as it's done right, I mean a film can be 100% dialogue and nothing else and still be good. With my previous post I just meant that he is clearly a good writer, and disliking his writing might suggest you just don't get it or have a hard time following it. Same way I watch an opera and might find it boring, I'm sure its deeper than that and if I got into it I would appreciate it more. The most you can give is a subjective opinion, or else you'd have to delve into technicalities. There's always a layer of subjectivity that counts, but shrugging his movies off by saying "eh too much talking" and "could have chopped some off" seems a bit superficial to me.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;49462611]Tarantino is one of the best writers out there, especially when it comes to dialogue. Saying you dislike his dialogues suggests you simply don't recognize good cinema.[/QUOTE] Fun fact: it's ok to not like things, even if they're things that you like I didn't really like Hateful Eight that much either, felt very juvenile and pseudo-political in the same way Django Unchained was. I feel like he tried to address a very complex issue (black slavery in 19th century America) in a very one-note, college liberal sort of way ("If I lived then I wouldn't own slaves because I'd be on the RIGHT side of history!"). Tarantino is very hit and miss with me but when he hits, he hits HARD - I fucking love Jackie Brown and Inglourious Basterds - but when he misses it feels like a mess. Tarantino might be a big name in working directors, but at the end of the day he's still a Hollywood director

[QUOTE=cheetahben;49464444]Fun fact: it's ok to not like things, even if they're things that you like I didn't really like Hateful Eight that much either, felt very juvenile and pseudo-political in the same way Django Unchained was. I feel like he tried to address a very complex issue (black slavery in 19th century America) in a very one-note, college liberal sort of way ("If I lived then I wouldn't own slaves because I'd be on the RIGHT side of history!"). Tarantino is very hit and miss with me but when he hits, he hits HARD - I fucking love Jackie Brown and Inglourious Basterds - but when he misses it feels like a mess. Tarantino might be a big name in working directors, but at the end of the day he's still a Hollywood director[/QUOTE] What was the political theme of this film? Sure Django had one, but this one having a clear black and white tone about political issues? I don't think so. [sp]Samuel L jacksons character wasn't at all near the same level of "Sympathy" that Django had. The movie didn't try and lionize him as the defacto hero of the situation. I felt like the film made every character out to be a villain in their own right. Sam's character is a literal rapist and you're not meant to go "oh god damn what a noble hero". You're meant to go, as with every character in that film I thought, "Fuck this guys no better than the other guys"[/sp] I really hardline disagree with the concept that the Hateful 8 was an ideologically forceful film trying to push a political ideology. It definitely wasn't.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;49464425]I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way, I didn't mean to be insulting. I don't see the redundancy in his dialogues, they seem to work fine as they are. They are often climactic and tense, and that requires slow and subtle build up. And I don't believe there's anything wrong with too much talking as long as it's done right, I mean a film can be 100% dialogue and nothing else and still be good. With my previous post I just meant that he is clearly a good writer, and disliking his writing might suggest you just don't get it or have a hard time following it. Same way I watch an opera and might find it boring, I'm sure its deeper than that and if I got into it I would appreciate it more. The most you can give is a subjective opinion, or else you'd have to delve into technicalities. There's always a layer of subjectivity that counts, but shrugging his movies off by saying "eh too much talking" and "could have chopped some off" seems a bit superficial to me.[/QUOTE] It's not that I don't get his dialogues, it's actually that I get them too much. The characters repeat the idea a couple of times to make sure the person he's talking to gets the message. I agree that it adds some tension, some importance to the scene, but it still remains redundant if this method is used throughout the entire film, which it is. Also, I accept your apologies and I feel relieved by them. [editline]6th January 2016[/editline] On a side note, I really like Django Unchained but I certainly didn't see it as deep as Tarantino made it to be. But it's a really fun and comical film.

it had most heart :] reservoir dogs is my least fave

I think it's underrated but that doesn't stop me from thinking Death Wish is his lowest point

i'll be honest, except for a choice few scenes i found Resevoir Dogs to be dissapointing i can't even put my finger on it, i just got sick of it after awhile

for as much as i seem to not like tarantinoб i can never hate him because he made kill bill

Quentins never made a bad film as far as I'm concerned. He always has really specific goals with his films.

i definitely don't consider resevoir dogs a bad film, i just didn't enjoy it as much as i expected it to. i like the idea of a movie thats almost entirely in the typical 3rd act (aka heist without the heist) but i feel like the dialogue wasn't up to par with some of his other movies, which is understandable considering it's essentially his first movie

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;49464610]You guys are going to criticize me, but I thought Jackie Brown was easily his weakest film. Didn't fit his style at all[/QUOTE] this doesnt even make sense. his movies define his style, and it's one of his early ones. and the 'style' isnt any different to reservoir dogs. [editline]6th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blazedol;49464705]I think it's underrated but that doesn't stop me from thinking Death Wish is his lowest point[/QUOTE] it took me a second of going 'he has nothing to do with death wish??' to realise u meant death proof [editline]6th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bathtub;49464849]i definitely don't consider resevoir dogs a bad film, i just didn't enjoy it as much as i expected it to. i like the idea of a movie thats almost entirely in the typical 3rd act (aka heist without the heist) but i feel like the dialogue wasn't up to par with some of his other movies, which is understandable considering it's essentially his first movie[/QUOTE] reservoir dogs is his best film

Reservoir Dogs and The Hateful Eight have a lot of common (I think Tarantino himself said that the latter was just "Reservoir Dogs in a bar" or something), but I think Reservoir Dogs is superior exactly because it was something unique when it came out. The Hateful Eight had the same idea, but there was no way it could have got the same impact. Reservoir Dogs will always be Reservoir Dogs, while The Hateful Eight will probably be remembered as "that other Tarantino film", if you see what I mean.

Phantasm III - A pretty good sequel if you enjoyed the previous two films. Had some great moments as expected and had that unique dreamlike atmosphere.

Aliens got a crush on this qt/10 [t]http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/02/26/12/Sigourney-Weaver.jpg[/t] Real talk though. Great film, got me emotional. Great characters, fun as hell, best monsters of the era...but rewatching it i noticed the camera work and photography direction was veeery stale and just functional. Looked a lot dull than i remembered...Terminator 1 looked better. But just details. Overall, 8.5/10. Great film. Ripley is my waifu

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49464340]Saw a buncha shit [B]Appaloosa (2008)[/B] A western directed by and starring Ed Harris, who plays a lawman-for-hire with his partner Viggo Mortensen. Classic western style save for the violence, which is very raw. Not that there's a lot of blood and gore, it's more that it is very unhollywood-like and cynical (?), in a good way. Viggo Mortensen is a total beast, and I love his character arc, just as much as I love the overall plot development. It's also, oddly enough, really funny at times. Hell, I'm tempted to say I liked this more than True Grit or 3:10 to Yuma. I'd recommend this based on Viggo's mustache alone [b]Warrior (20011)[/b] It's exactly the kind of movie it wants to be. Which is not a very deep or complex film, but a really emotional one. Christ, Nick Nolte's performance was just heartbreaking. Don't have much to say about it other than go watch it. [b]Star Wars: The Force Awakens[/b] (finally) I can't say I didn't like it, it nailed almost everything. It's more than Star Wars even needed (<- pretty sure someone said exactly this earlier in this thread but suck it it's my quote now), and although I'd say it doesn't come [I]too[/I] close to the OT, I'll gladly throw it in the rotation. I don't get the complaints about it being a New Hope remake. I feel like the statement only holds up if you look at the very basics of its plot structure with little regard for the way it branches out. Yes, the settings are similar and the themes remain, but if anything, I was more annoyed by the little references than the premise itself. Because the plot was even more unique than Star Wars needed (<- haha check it out I just used it twice lol rekt)[/QUOTE] hell yeah, nick nolte was so on point. plays the best (former) alcoholic ive ever seen. the scene when he [sp]relapses got us all worked up[/sp] good movie that rises above all the cliches of the genre, really great to watch with your family [editline]d[/editline] it's too bad he's just as troubled in real life

reservoir dogs isn't bad, it's just the least exciting and least affecting for me in his filmography. i haven't seen Death Proof and have no idea when I'll watch that. Isn't supposed to be seen with that other Rodriguez film? This being said, I do think me seeing Res Dogs very late on in me enjoying his films effected it... I think I saw Pulp Fiction about 10 times before seeing that. Even saw Inglourious before r dogs. I think my main problem is there's just not enough meat for me to breathe that film in. That's why I think Hateful 8 will compensate for that. :]

jackie brown is by far my least favorite tarantino movie. that being said there's still a few of his i haven't seen, i still need to watch true romance

Am I the only person here who isn't a fan of tarantino's movies? There's something about them that rubs me the wrong way but I can't put my finger on it.

im sure you arent, he has a very specific/distinct style that obviously not everyone will like if you ask me i think he's pure genius. he has by far the most rewatchable, consistently interesting movies. every aspect of his stuff, from the dialogue to the way the stories are structured is always a treat for me. ive seen pulp fiction likes 20 times and never get tired of it, and i cant say that about many other movies. as far as tarantino movies go inglorious basterds and pulp fiction are tied at first for me with resorvoir dogs and django close behind. they're all just so damn consistently good kill bill and jackie brown are the only ones ive seen so far that seemed slightly overrated (but still def pretty damn solid)