The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny

Indeed.

No one's saying they ARE all PF, they're comparing lesser works with a better work. Just like how LordAshur brings up Jackie Brown multiple times; comparison by presenting a greater work (as he perceives it). Avengers wasn't great fun because of special effects and "nerd jokes", it was great because it did a movie idea NO ONE thought could work out (for many, MANY reasons), and not only did it pull it off but it made a GREAT movie while doing so. 6 leading roles AND more supporting roles than you could shake a stick at, and the film still keeps you invested in every important character. You don't stop empathizing with the mind-controlled scientist just because he gets enslaved. You don't stop rooting for Tony Stark just because he gets heated and arrogant and starts clashing with the other good guys. In contrast with "typical" movie models, despite being "top heavy" with so many leading roles, the film gave them all enough exposure without detracting from the pace of the film's story, or each character's personal arc. It was a masterful balancing act. Know what it WASN'T that made it such a great watch? "Le nerd jokes". Banners line at the climax of the film ("That's my secret: I'm always angry.") was one of THE MOST DETESTED elements of the film... oh, but it was a Joss Whedon moment! It was a so-called "nerd joke"! So? It was breaking character and contradictory with his arc and his personal lore. It was cool (as defined by Joss Whedon types) for the sake of cool. But the various speeches by Loki were eloquent and devious and explained or cheated, depending on the scene. These weren't "nerd quotes", these were a character BEING a character. e.g. A MOVIE!!!

Inglorious Basterds wasn't a poor film because of a lack of special effects and nerdisms. It was a bad film because it was boring, had unlikable characters, in contrast with "standard" Tarantino it was entirely linear, was ridiculously over-the-top without much substance to back it up, and more reasons. Worse, it fell into the death pit of "just another WWII story", so that didn't do it any favors. Was it an active crutch? No, but it didn't help the film any.

At the end of the film, 3 different converging interests all clash at the same time, effectively accomplishing the same goal: kill/compromise the Nazi leadership, win the war for the Allies. But despite the fact that ALL 3 could accomplish this one massive goal on their OWN, and that by clashing with one another, needless lives are lost, you aren't interested in ANY of them, because the scene is all about pointless spectacle. The suicidal Basterds could finish this off with their psychotic plan to shred Hitler into explosive chunks of meat with their machine guns before exploding thanks to the bombs they strapped to themselves. The Jew Hunter could accomplish this by turning sides and getting the Nazi leadership killed as he sees fit (and he's portrayed throughout the film as more than capable of such feats). The theater owners could accomplish this by burning down and trapping the occupying Nazis as she already intended. But ALL THREE acted at the same time. In the end, one or all of them were needless and pointless. But do we care? Do was lament their deaths? No more than we lament the death-by-strangulation of the German actress for being a spy. She's just another character who gets snuffed out because the film wants a spectacle.

It's sadly ironic that you're so adamantly defending a film that relies SO heavily on empty spectacle while bashing another film for being little more than "special effects" and shallow words.

 

I'm with SnapSlav, I didn't like IB either. Not a huge Tarantino fanboy anyway.

Next movie I will see: Selma. Supposedly ok with a story based on real events.

 

Is the choice only between Tarantino fanboy and Tarantino hater?

His movies look good and have some witty dialogue and good action. Excepting Jackie Brown in my opinion. Methinks people who can't enjoy his movies for the most part, are just being pretentious.

 

Malevil (France, 1981) - solid post apo movie, based on excellent novel written by R. Merle in 1972. Slow-paced, focused on characters' psychology instead of mindless action, heavy underrated IMO. Really depressive movie filled with sad, bleak, and desolate scenes.

La Hora Fria (Spain, 2006) - modern post apo, filmed with somewhat irritating camera technique almost the same as in District 9 or Europa Report, introducing some strange and unexplained ghostly monsters. Wouldn't watch again, decent atmosphere anyway.

 

The Fight Club commentary track with Fincher, Pitt, Norton and Bonham-Carter is great.

"I got a hamper full of dildos as my farewell gift." -Helena Bonham Carter
"Great squirt there, buddy." -Brad Pitt

 

Ironic, considering that, in and of itself, IS pretentious. It's not pretentious to not like a thing, and easily be able to identify the reasons why. Neither is it to not like a thing, even if you can't fully express your reasons. But to haughtilly parade around a thing you appreciate, and be incapable of receiving criticism of it and segregating your love of it from it itself, and claiming something intangible like personal preference can be construed as validation is pretentiousness by definition. Exemplifying importance of a thing lacking in such importance. e.g. I love Ren & Stimpy, but I'm not so pretentious about it that I would dis someone who doesn't like it purely for not liking it. I enjoyed the show, it's also nostalgic to me, but these aren't as grandiose of purpose as one could make them out to be. They're simple enjoyment. If I were to claim "people who don't like Ren & Stimpy are simply [insert whatever]", that'd be pretentious.

Another irony is how pretentious the very DISCUSSION of what is and isn't pretentious can be. But hey, at least I wasn't the one casting the first stone. =P

Haven't heard the commentary for Fight Club, myself. I sure would like to. Even when I come to regret ever getting to hear the shit some people say (like EVERYTHING that comes out of Joss Whedon's mouth), I still would like to hear what they have to say in their commentaries. How else could I have learned that I do not like Joss Whedon, the artist, had I not so avidly sought the Firefly commentaries? =D

 

I can't debate with you. For one I don't care enough about the subject, and for two you make some false presumptions, and for three you take too many words to say it.

Saw the usual suspects. Sucks I already knew the twist.

 

I loled

sig material right there

 

My reasons for disliking most of Tarantino are probably quite pretentious indeed. For example, I dislike most of Kill Bill for his childish insistence on associating the movie with anime, to the extent of actually including anime in it. What a child. That movie is SO beneath me

On a different note - once you celebrate your own pretentiousness, is it still pretentious?

 

This is unfair Akratus, because pleonasm is very old stylistic method granting the most comprehensible explanation.

 

Sig material only if he wants to make himself look like a stupid ass. I get straight to the point, with as many words as are necessary. Calling that "too many words" is just a sign that you'd prefer your pontifications be cripplingly simplistic and inaccurate.

It's also startlingly contradictory to say you don't care enough about a subject that causes you to throw insults at anyone who disagrees with you. That's some serious "care" right there. *I* don't care enough about the subject of what makes a Tarantino film good or bad. That's why I don't call people "pretentious" if they disagree with me, or attack them for liking other movies. =P

 

I saw an honest liar, good documentary.

 

Can anyone reccomend a good documentary on the subject of any of the ancient civilizations?

Most documentaries I find on documentary sites are just History/Discovery/NatGeo sensationalist bullshit.

A single narrator who just throws information at you while all the footage shown is related to the subject of the film is a big plus over having various speakers talk about it.

 

Before I recall any actual documentary - you might want to check out Viasat History channel. It's a proper channel with actual history, complete opposite from the ones listed above. Most of their documentaries fall in the category you desire to watch.

 

Used to have Viasat for a while. It's far better than History/Discovery/NatGeo, but they too were becoming more and more sensationalist. Especially shows like Ancient Black Ops or Mysteries At The Museum or whatever it was called. There was that decent series about the origins of Christianity and the one where they followed the trail of Alexander's armies (there were probably more of them that I can't remember right now).

 

To be fair, I haven't properly watched television in about two years now - so I wouldn't really know about Viasat's ambitions of becoming a sensationalist channel - but what little I did manage to see recently was still okay. They might have a shit show here and there, but are still miles ahead of their competitors when it comes to actual history.

 

Documentaries are crap, almost as a general rule. Docus are made by tv-people trying their best to understand a science-subject, and the result is almost always inadequate at best.

SOME docus are good, but I couldn't pinpoint any just now, and I can't think of any good ancient history ones.

My favorite docu is "Lions and Hyenas, Eternal enemies", but this probably goes for many

 

Walking with Dinosaurs

 

THE WAR

is a pretty good one. But it is really more a series than just one documentary.

 

Can anybody tell me why so many people seem to think "Boondock Saints" is a great movie?