hermie
Well-Known Member
Ah nice. Their kids are probably deadly
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
What movie did you watch last night? (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter nlgbbbblth
- Start date
- Replies 23K
- Views 2M
- Watchers 64
Ah nice. Their kids are probably deadly
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
Life of Pi. Watched it on the laptop so probably not the best or intended way to view it but I was underwhelmed. Tiger was pretty cool. I'm struggling to think of anything else I can praise about it. The effects were good but CGI is still CGI. Oh, the guy who played the old Pi was good. Much better than the young Pi.
evil bandit
Well-Known Member
I saw it in the cinema and thought it was the most beautiful thing I've seen all year.
Watched it on the laptop last night - it's not as awe inspiring on a small screen - but still it's great.
For a first time actor that kid fucking nails it.
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
the tiger should win best supporting actor
hermie
Well-Known Member
Watched Zero Dark Thirty again last night coz the housemate had it on. Spent most of the movie wishing it was me Jessica was torturing in it. In all seriosity though, I think it should win the Oscar. Okay it's being attacked from all sides of the political spectrum and tells a very one-sided story (i.e. from the perspective of the CIA, and probably a sub-section of the organisation at that). But it's a fascinating insight and really well made at that.
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
nice!
hermie
Well-Known Member
She's amazing. "Please, I'm not that girl who fucks, it's unbecoming". Take that Claire Danes.
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
i love her! got to meet her on sunday night. she's stunning IRL. juno temple is my future wife though.
I know a girl here in Dublin who could be her twin. True story.
I think I have ZD30 almost as much as Hurt Locker.
Insidious pieces of overrated shit both.
Insidious pieces of overrated shit both.
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
*pushes glasses up and straightens tie". introduce us?
*Adjusts enormous schlong and fills wallet with wad of cash*
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
*backs off in the presence of alpha male. surreptitiously puts ground glass in alpha male's food. wins girl*
*Ignores girl and admires bank balance online and schlong in mirror later hires prostitute and even later still sobs alone in bed*
hermie
Well-Known Member
*thinks about doing something..........................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................then doesn't*
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................then doesn't*
*dies alone*
*makes omelette, eats omelette*
Yeah motherfuckers it's like that. Too real for y'all ?
Yeah motherfuckers it's like that. Too real for y'all ?
Django Unchained
I should really bite the bullet and start a blog or just change my name to TLDR
Some people don't like Quentin Tarantino and it's easy to see why. I like his films but to be fair his output since Jackie Brown have been marmitesque. Tarantino loves cinema in the same way that Martin Scorsese loves cinema, he wants to do it all, he wants to try his hand at everything, to reference everything and to openly steal anything that he thinks will further his story and that's fair enough. Where he differs from Marty is that Tarantino can only make one movie. A Tarantino movie. Scorsese can make any movie and make it his own, wether it's a period drama, a mafia saga, a kids film, comedy, biopic of the Dhalai Lama or a tourist advert for Whichita. He can do it and make it great by any standard you want to judge film by. Tarantino on the other hand could do all of the above, but at the end of the day it would still be his take on that "genre". That's what sets these two apart and in fact sets Tarantino apart from most of the directors in cinema at the moment. That is except for Horror directors but I’ll get to that later. What I mean is that Tarantino needs to work with a small palette, and maximise the effect. He's De Stijl school rather than old school if you want a dutch minimalist reference to hang on to. He needs to make a genre piece. While Scorsese or for example PT Anderson will steal from any genre you want and make a film which will in the end defy the logical limitations of whatever "genre" they're supposedly working in and therefore expand the scope of that film. For example Anderssons Punch Drunk Love is a love story, but it has a villain. Goodfellas is a "gangster movie" yet most of the film is a about family. If you were to edit either of these films you could easily make Punch Drunk Love a dark thriller or equally make Goodfellas a coming of age family tale and both of them would make perfect sense. Tarantinos films on the other hand have their respective genres hard wired into every single frame. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs for example look like what they are, gritty crime stories, apart from two scenes in diners every other frame is unmistakably a crime film. The costumes the lighting everything looks seedy. From Kill Bill onwards his films only make sense when viewed within the confines of the genre that he's, depending on your position - exploring or exploiting. For me this is perfectly fine. Like a horror movie (I don't actually particularly like horror movies but bear with me) a Tarantino movie works only within the logic of the genre. Horror movie logic is of course utterly different from other movie logic in that the point of a horror movie is to make the audience consistantly uncomfortable. No other genre does this over such a long period of it's running time. Other types of films make you squirm occasionally, when the story demands it, but people who go to horror movies go to see them to be made uncomfortable. This is the point of them. In a Tarantino movie there isn't nessisarily a feeling he's aiming for, what he wants is for his audience to think "wow, that's cool" for 2 hours and so unless you do sit in your seat and think "wow, that's cool" the common criticism is that there really isn't any other level for his films to work on and as such are failures. Which is a pity because despite all of the showiness of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained there are aspects that get overlooked and as such do show that as a film maker Tarantino is growing up and actually has something to say. Hidden under the sheen and pomp of Inglorious Basterds for example there are a few scenes which scratch at the surface of something deeper and now there's Django Unchained which within the confines of "Tarantino Revenge Movie" actually manages to do something interesting when it comes to how slavery is depicted in cinema. Suffice to say it's a ridiculous movie. From the outset the film is utterly overblown and verges on silly throughout. It looks great, The performances are everything you'd expect, Christoph Waltz and Jaimie Fox are excellent. Leonardo Di Caprio is brilliantly unbearable and Samuel L Jackson….. well he's Sam L playing an old bastard so you can imagine what that's like. Of course the real star of the show is Tarantino who is is visually assaulting the audience with his usual abandon. It’s fast it’s funny and depending on your opinion it’s very cool and sharp or it’s iritating and vacuous. Django hints at a new string to Tarantinos bow but never quite arrives at it. Here Quentin is making a point with his portrayal of slavery. It’s very easy to say yes “Slavery Bad” but then if Steven Speilbeg makes that point the critics queue up to lavish him with praise. What Tarantino wants to point out is exactly how horrific it was and portray the slaves society as internally classist. Tarantino doesn’t play by the same rules as Spielberg and the likes so when he shows torture, it’s horrific and when he shows how the slaves are treated like dirt then you better believe it’s not an easy watch. This is different from what most directors will allow on screen and there is always a feeling the Tarantino is only scraping the surface of what actually went on with regards to the treatment of slaves. It’s a filthy business and it deserves a filthy film. This is that film and If I were an American historian I’d wager it opens an uncomfortable can of worms as to exactly how much of it is accurate, and remember this is a Quentin Tarantino movie, this is a man who made it big by making torture a set piece. Another thing that Tarantino manages is to have his hero exist within a social hierarchy, not just black and white, but within the black slave culture there are certain stratas of status and the film has no problem getting it’s hands dirty here too. Of course like a horror movie this is all presented within the Tarantino Logic so it’s blackly comic without ever bothering to draw attention to it and should serve as a lesson to Spielberg and associates that the “message” should be contained within the film instead of the other way around. Of course the other aspect of Tarantinos logic is that his films moods swing violently and no character is safe, again this is somewhat like a horror film. One second you could be enjoying a witty scene between two major characters and the next second one of their heads could be shot in half, Tarantino loves to kill his stars and as a result when the film moved towards it’s close it still keeps a bit of tension pent up as everyone is expendable. There are flaws, some of the music queues are cooler in QTs head than they are on film but overall I forgave this as the film does it’s best to exist as much as possible within an African American culture. So yes its a film about slavery why shouldn’t there be hip hop and soul on the soundtrack ? Films about cowboys can have Bob Dylan singing over them why shouldn’t black culture permiate a film about this ? Some shots and scenes which aim at “cool” miss the target completely and end up just being cheesy but over all it’s not enough to totally derail the film. I like Tarantino and I liked Django Unchained. It’s funny, highly entertaining and hidden somewhere there is a soupcon of a gruesome history lesson which the film manages get right which is no mean feat because it could have been utterly exploitative or utterly preachy.
I should really bite the bullet and start a blog or just change my name to TLDR
Some people don't like Quentin Tarantino and it's easy to see why. I like his films but to be fair his output since Jackie Brown have been marmitesque. Tarantino loves cinema in the same way that Martin Scorsese loves cinema, he wants to do it all, he wants to try his hand at everything, to reference everything and to openly steal anything that he thinks will further his story and that's fair enough. Where he differs from Marty is that Tarantino can only make one movie. A Tarantino movie. Scorsese can make any movie and make it his own, wether it's a period drama, a mafia saga, a kids film, comedy, biopic of the Dhalai Lama or a tourist advert for Whichita. He can do it and make it great by any standard you want to judge film by. Tarantino on the other hand could do all of the above, but at the end of the day it would still be his take on that "genre". That's what sets these two apart and in fact sets Tarantino apart from most of the directors in cinema at the moment. That is except for Horror directors but I’ll get to that later. What I mean is that Tarantino needs to work with a small palette, and maximise the effect. He's De Stijl school rather than old school if you want a dutch minimalist reference to hang on to. He needs to make a genre piece. While Scorsese or for example PT Anderson will steal from any genre you want and make a film which will in the end defy the logical limitations of whatever "genre" they're supposedly working in and therefore expand the scope of that film. For example Anderssons Punch Drunk Love is a love story, but it has a villain. Goodfellas is a "gangster movie" yet most of the film is a about family. If you were to edit either of these films you could easily make Punch Drunk Love a dark thriller or equally make Goodfellas a coming of age family tale and both of them would make perfect sense. Tarantinos films on the other hand have their respective genres hard wired into every single frame. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs for example look like what they are, gritty crime stories, apart from two scenes in diners every other frame is unmistakably a crime film. The costumes the lighting everything looks seedy. From Kill Bill onwards his films only make sense when viewed within the confines of the genre that he's, depending on your position - exploring or exploiting. For me this is perfectly fine. Like a horror movie (I don't actually particularly like horror movies but bear with me) a Tarantino movie works only within the logic of the genre. Horror movie logic is of course utterly different from other movie logic in that the point of a horror movie is to make the audience consistantly uncomfortable. No other genre does this over such a long period of it's running time. Other types of films make you squirm occasionally, when the story demands it, but people who go to horror movies go to see them to be made uncomfortable. This is the point of them. In a Tarantino movie there isn't nessisarily a feeling he's aiming for, what he wants is for his audience to think "wow, that's cool" for 2 hours and so unless you do sit in your seat and think "wow, that's cool" the common criticism is that there really isn't any other level for his films to work on and as such are failures. Which is a pity because despite all of the showiness of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained there are aspects that get overlooked and as such do show that as a film maker Tarantino is growing up and actually has something to say. Hidden under the sheen and pomp of Inglorious Basterds for example there are a few scenes which scratch at the surface of something deeper and now there's Django Unchained which within the confines of "Tarantino Revenge Movie" actually manages to do something interesting when it comes to how slavery is depicted in cinema. Suffice to say it's a ridiculous movie. From the outset the film is utterly overblown and verges on silly throughout. It looks great, The performances are everything you'd expect, Christoph Waltz and Jaimie Fox are excellent. Leonardo Di Caprio is brilliantly unbearable and Samuel L Jackson….. well he's Sam L playing an old bastard so you can imagine what that's like. Of course the real star of the show is Tarantino who is is visually assaulting the audience with his usual abandon. It’s fast it’s funny and depending on your opinion it’s very cool and sharp or it’s iritating and vacuous. Django hints at a new string to Tarantinos bow but never quite arrives at it. Here Quentin is making a point with his portrayal of slavery. It’s very easy to say yes “Slavery Bad” but then if Steven Speilbeg makes that point the critics queue up to lavish him with praise. What Tarantino wants to point out is exactly how horrific it was and portray the slaves society as internally classist. Tarantino doesn’t play by the same rules as Spielberg and the likes so when he shows torture, it’s horrific and when he shows how the slaves are treated like dirt then you better believe it’s not an easy watch. This is different from what most directors will allow on screen and there is always a feeling the Tarantino is only scraping the surface of what actually went on with regards to the treatment of slaves. It’s a filthy business and it deserves a filthy film. This is that film and If I were an American historian I’d wager it opens an uncomfortable can of worms as to exactly how much of it is accurate, and remember this is a Quentin Tarantino movie, this is a man who made it big by making torture a set piece. Another thing that Tarantino manages is to have his hero exist within a social hierarchy, not just black and white, but within the black slave culture there are certain stratas of status and the film has no problem getting it’s hands dirty here too. Of course like a horror movie this is all presented within the Tarantino Logic so it’s blackly comic without ever bothering to draw attention to it and should serve as a lesson to Spielberg and associates that the “message” should be contained within the film instead of the other way around. Of course the other aspect of Tarantinos logic is that his films moods swing violently and no character is safe, again this is somewhat like a horror film. One second you could be enjoying a witty scene between two major characters and the next second one of their heads could be shot in half, Tarantino loves to kill his stars and as a result when the film moved towards it’s close it still keeps a bit of tension pent up as everyone is expendable. There are flaws, some of the music queues are cooler in QTs head than they are on film but overall I forgave this as the film does it’s best to exist as much as possible within an African American culture. So yes its a film about slavery why shouldn’t there be hip hop and soul on the soundtrack ? Films about cowboys can have Bob Dylan singing over them why shouldn’t black culture permiate a film about this ? Some shots and scenes which aim at “cool” miss the target completely and end up just being cheesy but over all it’s not enough to totally derail the film. I like Tarantino and I liked Django Unchained. It’s funny, highly entertaining and hidden somewhere there is a soupcon of a gruesome history lesson which the film manages get right which is no mean feat because it could have been utterly exploitative or utterly preachy.
Moon, thought it was really good. Old style Sci-Fi movie.
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowLatest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Carpark Sci-fi, Fierce Shook, Hubert Selby Junior Infants live in Tullamore 20th April- Started by sleepy
- Replies: 4
