What's The Latest Film You Have Seen?

boo boo · 12-28-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Don't recall that, but I remember thinking the humor was a bit geezerish...:/

The best thing I've seen this year. 10/10

And you say Akira is badly animated.

boo boo · 12-28-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoemerMW

While I completely agree that Tarantino is incredibly overhyped, I'd say that Jackie Brown could be considered a serious film, and although it does delve a wee bit into his usual style, it shows that he can do serious films.

Too bad that's his worst film to date.

I think Tarantino is great, I think that whenever someone is as polarizing a figure as he is, he's obviously doing something right.

If you're looking for something that's more in depth, look elsewhere, but that's a lame reason to call him a bad director. This is a guy who just takes influences from many genres (westerns, exploitation, samurai) and blends it into his own trademark style, his dialogue, his characters, his storytelling style and his overall directing style is great, his films have more to do with loose themes than with any one unifying narative, there's nothing wrong with that. So what if he dosen't have it in him to do a completely serious movie? Is there something wrong with doing your own thing all of the sudden? His movies are pure entertainment, just on a more personal and intelligent level than most. I don't think Tarantino would do a good serious film, because he already tried with Jackie Brown and failed, but then again, Scorsese can't do a good upbeat musical comedy.

Oh, and Spy Kids 2 and 3 sucked big time.

adidasss · 12-28-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

And you say Akira is badly animated.

I've already explained I was referring to the character design.

RoemerMW · 12-28-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Too bad that's his worst film to date.

I think Tarantino is great, I think that whenever someone is as polarizing a figure as he is, he's obviously doing something right.

If you're looking for something that's more in depth, look elsewhere, but that's a lame reason to call him a bad director. This is a guy who just takes influences from many genres (westerns, exploitation, samurai) and blends it into his own trademark style, his dialogue, his characters, his storytelling style and his overall directing style is great, his films have more to do with loose themes than with any one unifying narrative, there's nothing wrong with that. So what if he doesn't have it in him to do a completely serious movie? Is there something wrong with doing your own thing all of the sudden? His movies are pure entertainment, just on a more personal and intelligent level than most. I don't think Tarantino would do a good serious film, because he already tried with Jackie Brown and failed, but then again, Scorsese can't do a good upbeat musical comedy.

Oh, and Spy Kids 2 and 3 sucked big time.

I was just replying to the assertion that he had never made a serious film. I love his films, with the exception of Death Proof and My Best Friend's Birthday. And Jackie Brown is my favorite Tarantino film btw, I don't get all of the hate for it.

On a side note, I do hate the extreme fanboyism associated with him (I am not referring to anyone here, btw). Every other self proclaimed film buff won't STFU about how great he is, and it irks me that they, for the most part, won' ever delve into anything other than the obvious canonized directors like Tarantino, Kubrick, Coppola, etc. Yes, Tarantino is great and all, but their is so much more out there that they will never get the chance to experience because of their blindness towards anything not handed to them on a silver platter by the AFI and other top 100 lists. I literally had people tell me "why bother watching anything that isn't popular, if it isn't popular it must not be good". I've heard so many variations of this over the years, and it sickens me. Expand your horizons, strive to know the non-canonized films! Film should not be confined to a few lists and a few directors, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of great directors, not just the dozens that everyone knows about. Sorry for the rant

"but then again, Scorsese can't do a good upbeat musical comedy."

Who says he couldn't? He's made at least one comedy, and he's made a decent enough musical, New York, New York. This is not an argument against Tarantino or anything, I just thought that I should point that out.

boo boo · 12-28-2008, 02:37 PM

Yeah, I hate it when people focus too much on certain filmmakers without appreciating other talents, I'm always searching for other talented filmmakers, I just consider Tarantino one of the best, I wouldn't say I'm a fanboy though.

RoemerMW · 12-28-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Yeah, I hate it when people focus too much on certain filmmakers without appreciating other talents, I'm always searching for other talented filmmakers, I just consider Tarantino one of the best, I wouldn't say I'm a fanboy though.

I'm not calling you a fanboy, I was just ranting.

sweet_nothing · 12-28-2008, 10:06 PM

Was actually really good, but I still dont get what the big deal with the joker was.

sleepy jack · 12-29-2008, 12:18 AM

Charlie Kaufman is a genius.

Astronomer · 12-29-2008, 04:34 AM

^ Love this movie. I actually have to teach it to a year 12 media class next year.

jackhammer · 12-29-2008, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

As I said, I rated it like that because it achieved what it set out to do perfectly. Some people couldn't get into it and that's fine...but you can't really compare Spy kids with Speed racer, they're in separate universes as far as style goes, mainly because the former has none. But ok, I'll be the first to admit that I'm shallow and appreciate style and originality more than your regular cinema nut. That's why I liked 300 (that or the oily muscles, I get confused

).

Oh and I don't dismiss horror, I just can't get into trash, which seems to be horror's main domain.

It's not about being neccessarily shallow though. I like 300 and dumb ass Jean Claude Van Damme films but I would'nt class myself as shallow and a films asthetics and mise en scene do go a long way to make me appreciate a less than stellar film but it's not the primary factor. I am taking Speed Racer on both counts and unfortunately the lame story means that once you have seen the visuals a couple of times then it does'nt merit repeat viewings IMO.

Different strokes and all that though. I think films like The Fountain, Dark City and The Fountain work briliantly on both a script and asthetic level. As for the Wachowskis, I thought the whole Matrix trilogy was brilliant and Bound (their debut) is a great little noir thriller.

Horror equating trash is a lazy argument though. Watch 'Santa Sangre' for me and report back

12-29-2008, 04:34 AM	#1879 (permalink)
Astronomer we are stardust Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 2,894	^ Love this movie. I actually have to teach it to a year 12 media class next year. __________________