Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread

[Solo]

I finally saw The Hurt Locker....fairly gripping thriller/action flick, but how in the hell did this win Best Picture?

[Cheebs]

I finally saw The Hurt Locker....fairly gripping thriller/action flick, but how in the hell did this win Best Picture?

It was a good action/thriller movie but all the awards it has gotten has caused it to get far too over-hyped which will cause a lot of people to be disappointed. I can't imagine I'd enjoy it as much as I did if I didn't see it back in the summer before all the hype. Although it was a far better movie than Avatar of course, but that goes without saying.

[The Fake Shemp]

The Ghost Writer is a lot better than Shutter Island, especially from a storytelling standpoint. Shutter Island is a very flawed, but good film. The Ghost Writer is the most compelling film Polanski has made in eons.

And no, I'm not a big fan of The Pianist.

[Solo]

Im just trying to understand it beating Inglorious Basterds or even Up In The Air.

[The Fake Shemp]

The Hurt Locker was better than Inglourious Basterds, but I can't speak for Up in the Air. I find it difficult to believe it was better, though. I heard A Simple Man is the overlooked one.

[Solo]

The Hurt Locker was better than Inglourious Basterds, but I can't speak for Up in the Air.

I can't think of a single criteria by which I'd agree.

Also, Shutter Island was just alright. Might be the worst of the DiCaprio/Scorsese collaborations. On the flip side, I watched The Aviator once again the other day, and its better each time I see it.

[Phoenix Dark]

Inglorious Basterds was so good.

[Cheebs]

The Ghost Writer is a lot better than Shutter Island, especially from a storytelling standpoint. Shutter Island is a very flawed, but good film. The Ghost Writer is the most compelling film Polanski has made in eons.

And no, I'm not a big fan of The Pianist.

I probably need to see Shutter Island again, Ghost Writer might very well be better looking back at it. And yeah I wasn't a fan of the Pianist. I knew Ghost Writer was getting a lot of praise but I really haven't enjoyed a Polanski movie in forever so I wasn't sure what to think but it really surprised me.  I mean Pierce Brosnan was actually acting instead of doing the smug Brosnany thing he always does.

I am looking at Polanski's imdb now and wow, this is probably his first movie I throughly enjoyed since Frantic which was over 20 years ago. Might even be his best since Chinatown that I have seen.

[cool breeze]

Im just trying to understand it beating Inglorious Basterds or even Up In The Air.

I agree that both those were better movies but whatever.  I'm sure the people who say it is the "iconic movie of today's war blah blah" or something like that have the right idea about why it won.

[The Fake Shemp]

Eh, I really like The Tenant.

I was also kind of blown away by Brosnan's performance; he managed to pull off that aloof, but credible political attitude of arrogance. Normally when actors try to mimic a politician, it just comes off as ridiculously satirical and/or over the top.

Tom Wilkinson manages to steal the movie, in my opinion - but Ewan McGregor does his thing and is a total pro. I was a little saddened by Eli Wallach's cameo. He just looks horrible, I thought he was going to keel over on camera.

But the cinematography was just awesome, and what a fantastic script. They way it builds up to that fantastic ending, just - wow. This is the best script Polanski has handled in decades. Just great shit.

[Phoenix Dark]

On a 10 point scale of justified rapes, where does this fall?

[The Fake Shemp]

I feel this should probably clear of him all current rape charges, and we should give him a pass for sodomizing a minor. Anything beyond that should get reduced jail time.

[Cheebs]

Right on every single account.  I really feel this was Chinatown era Roman Ponlanski.

If I had one problem with the movie, and it is only minor it would be it seemed like Kim Cattral had no reason to be there. She seemed to just hang around and not really move anything forward. But overall everything was great.

So many small things in it I liked, like I loved the fact Ewan McGreggor never was named he was always just the ghost.

I feel this should probably clear of him all current rape charges, and we should give him a pass for sodomizing a minor. Anything beyond that should get reduced jail time.

Well if he is unable to ever do a movie again this is a great one to go out on.

[The Fake Shemp]

As for the case against Inglourious Basterds vs The Hurt Locker, I felt the latter pretty much mopped the floor against the former in terms of acting, writing and directing. Not that Inglourious Basterds is bad, but it's just a popcorn flick that has its share of bad acting and needless Tarantino-isms. It's balanced by Waltz's incredible performance, some great dialogue and a few superbly directed sequences - but Tarantino just couldn't keep it in his pants.

My feelings upon leaving the theater after watching Inglourious Basterds was that Tarantino fell short of making a truly great film and all the flaws were manageable - which made me a little irked. The only thing I think hurts The Hurt Locker (hyuk, hyuk) is its length (it could be shorter). Bigelow was able to convey more with less; something Tarantino could learn.

Didn't see Up in the Air, but my opinions on Reitman are well documented.

[Cheebs]

Basterds was too Tarantinoy to ever win major awards (although I loved it). Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if PRECIOUS BASED ON THE BOOK BY SAPPHIRE got more votes than Basterds did in the end.

[Solo]

As for the case against Inglourious Basterds vs The Hurt Locker, I felt the latter pretty much mopped the floor against the former in terms of acting, writing and directing.

And I feel the opposite on all three areas. On top of that, IB did suspense better than The Hurt Locker did (two different scenes, in fact, were more suspenseful than anything in THL - the opening scene and the pub scene), which seemed to be THL's bread and butter.

[The Fake Shemp]

Right on every single account.  I really feel this was Chinatown era Roman Ponlanski.

This film has an edge that he has lacked in recent years. I really dug The Ninth Gate, but what a fatally flawed film. I feel like he's learned a lot of lessons from that endeavor.

If I had one problem with the movie, and it is only minor it would be it seemed like Kim Cattral had no reason to be there. She seemed to just hang around and not really move anything forward. But overall everything was great.

Eh, I felt she was kind of critical in diverting the audience's attention from Brosnan's wife; giving credence to our initial belief that his wife is a victim of a marriage rapidly falling apart (courtesy of Cattral's character) and creating the illusion that his wife was a bit player in the grand scheme of things.

It also gives Polanski an excuse to film another scene full of adultery, which is par for the course as far as he goes.

[Cheebs]

Yeah, that makes sense. I didn't think about that aspect. He couldn't have used that asian lady who was in like every scene bringing people sandwiches constantly I guess.

[The Fake Shemp]

I'd also like to take this opportunity to declare that I would still hit it. How much of that is due to my childhood crush on her from Big Trouble in Little China and my rose-tinted nostalgia goggles is best left to you all.

My producer pal in Los Angeles is boycotting The Ghost Writer - not on the grounds that Polanski is a pedophile, but that he worries that the imagery will make him homesick for the Northeast.

[The Fake Shemp]

It didn't have a chance, and it shouldn't have won. I put it squarely in the realm of popcorn flicks that were elevated to Oscar nominations in a year that the Academy was trying to recapture some kind of mainstream audience.

It was certainly a lot better than The Blind Side, Avatar, Up, etc.

[Great Rumbler]

The Hurt Locker was better than Inglourious Basterds, but I can't speak for Up in the Air. I find it difficult to believe it was better, though. I heard A Simple Man is the overlooked one.

Having seen The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, District 9, Up, and A Serious Man, I'd go with the latter. A Serious Man is really the only one of those that I'd like to see again just to get back into it and work my way through all the layers of meaning and metaphors, I can't really say that about any of the other movies as they are mostly simpler movies with obvious motives.

[Cheebs]

Of the A ____ Man duo from last year I gotta say I preferred Serious over Single.

A Serious Man Although in a Single Man's favor I'd still fuck Julianne Moore. My god, I can't believe she is 50.

[Great Rumbler]

I read my post again and noticed that I put "A Simple Man", instead of "A Serious Man". There's not even a movie from this past year called A Simple Man!

[Dickie Dee]

What'd y'all think about the opening scene in A Serious Man, you think it added anything to the movie?

[The Dark Shake 3000]

A Serious Man is the Coen Bros' masterpiece

And even though the Coens have claimed in interviews etc. that the first scene is pointless and just put in there for fun, I think it's clearly intended to mean something.

[Solo]

A Serious Man Although in a Single Man's favor I'd still fuck Julianne Moore. My god, I can't believe she is 50.

She has a great little sex scene with Amanda Seyfried in Atom Egoyan's Chloe 

[Great Rumbler]

What'd y'all think about the opening scene in A Serious Man, you think it added anything to the movie?

I think of it as sort of the full movie in a nutshell. The wife

spoiler (click to show/hide)

is so convinced that the old man is an evil spirit that she's willing to stab him just to prove that she's right. Instead of just realizing that the reports of his death were simply mistaken, she looks for some complex answer whereby the reports are correct. It's similar to how Larry is constantly trying to find some complex, divine answer to his problems, rather than accepting that his problems are earthly problems and most likely have earthly answers. His spends most of his time listening to men that know no more of his problems than he does and ultimately gets nowhere at all. Of course, with the ending, perhaps there IS more to his problems after all.

[close]

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I was thinking more along the lines of it being "you reap what you sow".

[Dickie Dee]

And even though the Coens have claimed in interviews etc. that the first scene is pointless and just put in there for fun, I think it's clearly intended to mean something.

I can see that. I think it was that I had just watched Burn After Reading, which I enjoyed, but I have no frigging clue why that movie was made. I was kind of obsessing over whether the Coens just threw some useless thing in for the fun of it.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

And even though the Coens have claimed in interviews etc. that the first scene is pointless and just put in there for fun, I think it's clearly intended to mean something.

I can see that. I think it was that I had just watched Burn After Reading, which I enjoyed, but I have no frigging clue why that movie was made.

I felt the same way the first time I saw it, and it made me dismiss the flick as a one-off curiosity piece more than a real film. After seeing it a few more times though I've come to appreciate it on it's own terms. It doesn't really have any concrete reason for existing, but then most films don't. Doesn't change the fact that it's well made, funny as hell and interesting, though. When you think about it Big Lebowski doesn't really have any reason to exist, either, but I'm glad as hell that it does.

[bud]

wilkinson is an amazing actor. i remember watching micheal clayton and immediately, during the opening, i knew that that was going to be a fuck awesome performance.

[The Fake Shemp]

The Ghost Writer, oddly enough, reminds of Michael Clayton. If I had to pick a corny Hollywood log line for The Ghost Writer, it'd be, "It's like Michael Clayton meets *The Manchurian Candidate."

* The good one, not the mediocre remake.

[Solo]

Wilkinson can be fantastic, or he can ham it up Carmine Falcone style.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Wilkinson can be fantastic, or he can ham it up Carmine Falcone style.

Hammy Wilkinson > most other actors

[Cheebs]

Wilkinson can be fantastic, or he can ham it up Carmine Falcone style.

Hammy Wilkinson is still a joy. Like his hammy performance is one of the few really great parts in Guy Ritchie's Rock'N'Rolla.

[The Fake Shemp]

Yeah, when Wilkinson chews scenery, he makes me hungry for salad - that's how good he is.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Wilkinson was the best thing about Michael Clayton, too.

[bud]

swinton's performance was even better, imo.

[brawndolicious]

As for the case against Inglourious Basterds vs The Hurt Locker, I felt the latter pretty much mopped the floor against the former in terms of acting, writing and directing.

And I feel the opposite on all three areas. On top of that, IB did suspense better than The Hurt Locker did (two different scenes, in fact, were more suspenseful than anything in THL - the opening scene and the pub scene), which seemed to be THL's bread and butter.

The problem with IB's suspenseful scenes is that they were wrapped in a morally ambiguous story that rewrites history to make it more accessible, meaning you can't really consider it anything beyond a popcorn flick.

I think A Serious Man was the best movie last year, honestly.  At least to me it felt that way.

[Joe Molotov]

A Serious Man Although in a Single Man's favor I'd still fuck Julianne Moore. My god, I can't believe she is 50.

She has a great little sex scene with Amanda Seyfried in Atom Egoyan's Chloe 

o i c

[The Dark Shake 3000]

As for the case against Inglourious Basterds vs The Hurt Locker, I felt the latter pretty much mopped the floor against the former in terms of acting, writing and directing.

And I feel the opposite on all three areas. On top of that, IB did suspense better than The Hurt Locker did (two different scenes, in fact, were more suspenseful than anything in THL - the opening scene and the pub scene), which seemed to be THL's bread and butter.

The problem with IB's suspenseful scenes is that they were wrapped in a morally ambiguous story rewriting history, meaning you can't really consider it anything beyond a popcorn flick.

I think A Serious Man was the best movie last year, honestly.  At least to me it felt that way.

Oh, I remember you. You're still totally wrong about everything. Nice.

[Ichirou]

nintenho is a nice guy but his opinions on everything utilize some weird form of alien logic I have never been able to understand.

FWIW, I wasn't a huge fan of Inglorious Bastards, but to call it a "popcorn flick" is ridiculous.  It's pretty clear that Tarantino has his head stuck up cinema's ass so all his films feel really divorced from real life.

Inglorious Bastards is really his Once Upon A Time in the West.  A movie that is about movies, but which doesn't feel as cobbled together from disparate pieces like the Kill Bill flicks did.  It's really ambitious and I'm glad he made it, even if I feel it's really flawed.  And it's definitely a major step up from his previous three movies.

[brawndolicious]

I don't look highly on something the utilizes WW2 to create a shallow revengy feeling towards Hitler.  I can enjoy it as a popcorn movie definitely but all that stuff about the French-Jew theater owner was just eye-rolling stimulus.

[Ichirou]

ninteho, it's the fact that Tarantino is taking something that filmmakers do ALL THE TIME (rewrite history) and being completely blatant and out there about it.  I thought it was a pretty brave thing to do, honestly.  He could've gotten tons of backlash from Jewish groups.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I don't look highly on something the utilizes WW2 to create a revenge-flick.  I can enjoy it as a popcorn movie definitely but all that stuff about the French-Jew theater owner was just eye-rolling stimulus.

Seriously? So do you hate shit like Indiana Jones and The Great Escape too?

(Not that Basterds is on the same level as either of those, but all of them draw on WWII to create pure genre cinema)

[Ichirou]

Yeah, if anyone is guilty of using Nazis as stereotypes to create cackling genre villains, Spielberg is it.

And IB actually delves into exactly WHY these people are so reviled by history, not just making them Snidely Whiplash with a swastika.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

ninteho, it's the fact that Tarantino is taking something that filmmakers do ALL THE TIME (rewrite history) and being completely blatant and out there about it.  I thought it was a pretty brave thing to do, honestly.  He could've gotten tons of backlash from Jewish groups.

Exactly. If I may be a self-promoting jackass for a moment, I wrote a lengthy article about this for some film website when Basterds came out. My take:

For young filmmakers of my generation, Quentin Tarantino is both a touchstone and a man whose lumbering shadow we scramble violently to get out from under. An energetic pop culture sounding board with big ideas and the tenacity (or is that clout?) to see them through, he’s both the prototype and the continuing poster child for a generation that’s learned to spit out what it so voraciously chews on; a generation that’s managed to put hours wasted away in dark, dank cinemas or rooted stoically before a glowing television set to good use; a generation which has made deriving influence an art form in and of itself. At the risk of damning with faint praise, the man has made being a cultural magpie unequivocally chic.

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction revolutionized modern cinema even while glorifying its uglier sides; both films are derived less from experience or analysis than a desire to imitate, a desire for tone – their DNA is not life, but movies. They’re brazenly, unabashedly cinematic; their characters are characters, their pathos are skin-deep, their speech is less conversation than rhythmic ballet, less a verbal sparring match than a soulful duet. In other words, no one could possibly mistake them for being what we know as “realistic”. They are flights of fancy printed to celluloid, fantasy films masquerading as nitty-gritty character pieces. They are cool, they are fun — they play like an uninterrupted jam session, constantly doubling back and over, missing a beat here or there, relishing the moments where things “click” to turn a spirited cacophony into beautiful music. They are jazz, they are Godard. They feel fresh and new and vibrant even fifteen years past their expiration date; in fact they’re still so ripe with the splendor and spectacle of pure cinema one wonders if they come with an expiration date at all. They get by on charm and spunk, and are endearing for their playfulness, their willingness to go left where others would go right, their boldfaced assertion that cinema was then and this is now and it’s unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.

Like most of my generation, I love these films. Like most film geeks, I love them even more because they speak to me and others of my ilk in what we rather arrogantly assume to be Morse code; they are films about films, about the films we love and figure no one else has ever heard of and that no one in their right minds would waste time talking about — and then there’s this motor-mouth with his wild eyes and flailing arms waxing poetic and at a mile a minute about them as if they were the most important things in the world and you know what  maybe they are. Quentin’s early films helped make “cinephilia” cool and admirable instead of odd quirks to raise eyebrows like collecting Beanie Babies or buying comics or doing any number of activities which society deems anti-social and thus juvenile and reproachable. They made film geeks and film geekdom strangely fashionable; they get a pass if nothing else than for the fact that they so clearly and plainly illustrate that Quentin is indeed “one of us.”

And then a weird thing happened. Quentin blew up and, following a poorly received (if unjustly so) third feature (Jackie Brown), went AWOL for six years and left a legion of devotees hanging and waiting around with baited breath. The long-awaited (and long overdue) Kill Bill films were a momentous occasion, and in retrospect they delivered — they’re good, solid films in their own right, not exactly Pulp Fiction but not really trying to be anyhow. And at the same time these films defined the trajectory of Quentin’s career post-Brown; where once the filmmaker guided us along with a certain grace, tongue planted firmly in cheek, now he tosses concept and image and “homage” and everything under the sun at the screen all at once and laughs gleefully while doing it, long and hard and full of pumped-up gusto. His following film, the ironically titled Death Proof (considering it did in fact did die a quick and painful death at the box office as the second half of Grindhouse), could reasonably be described as watching the filmmaker masturbating furiously for two hours on celluloid and talking himself silly while doing it.

These later films are more or less a mess, to varying degrees; there’s this lingering sense that Quentin’s regressed somewhat in the last few years, casting off the bold maturity of Jackie Brown to play in a vast, empty sandbox by himself, where he’s free to do anything he wants and go wherever his heart desires on the slightest whim. Some would call this freedom; others, indulgence.
Which leads me to the heart of the matter, the World War II epic calling itself Inglourious Basterds (the misspelling is intentional, for reasons no one but Quentin seems to know). Originally envisioned as a “guys on a mission” throwback (think The Dirty Dozen with a potty mouth), Basterds has been in the works since before the general public even caught wind of Pulp Fiction a good fifteen years ago, though only now is it finally gracing screens worldwide. Indeed this could very well be Quentin’s epic; it’s broader in scope and more bombastic in execution than any the man’s previous films, including the already bloated and over-the-top Kill Bill series. Over the years, however, the film seems to have morphed far beyond its original scope– the final cut feels less like a Dirty Dozen riff than an ode to Cinema Paradiso.

And much as it may surprise you, believe the hype: This film is fucking glorious.

Inglourious Basterds follows two main plotlines. In the first, a young Jewish refugee named Shoshanna (played with steely grace by Mélanie Laurent) takes to posing as the owner of a French repertory theater following the execution of her family at the hands of the S.S., specifically famed Col. Hans “The Jew Hunter” Landa (a scene-stealing Christoph Waltz), and comes perilously close to watching her façade unravel when she catches the eye and attention of a young S.S. war hero-cum-movie star (Daniel Brühl). In the second, a group of Jewish American Allies led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt, channeling Rhett Butler) terrorize the Third Reich with regular ambushes, baseball bats to the cranium and (fair warning to the faint of heart) meticulously detailed scalpings mimicking those famously administered by Apache resistance fighters. At a certain point, of course, these two plots begin to convene; a plan is set into motion to eliminate a fair chunk of the S.S. top brass by infiltrating the premiere of a Goebbels-helmed propaganda film and making sure no one comes out alive. And as luck would have it, the premiere just so happens to be taking place at Shoshanna’s theater.


It’s interesting to note just how intrigued Tarantino seems to be by the Nazi propaganda machine (and by association Herr Goebbels himself, who appears in the film about as frequently as the title characters); had Inglourious Basterds been released at the height of World War II it would itself function as an unabashed, unapologetic piece of propaganda. It’s a film less concerned with facts and historical accuracy than with ideas and homespun mythology: Nazis are evil, and they most definitely need to be taught a lesson. (“Nazis ain’t got no humanity”, Raine snarls at his would-be compatriots, “and they need to be destroyed.”) Over some two and a half hours we watch as Nazis are beaten to death, pumped full of bullets and, in a grand finale, herded into a locked room by the hundreds and blown to bits (perhaps the most obvious and satisfying spin on concentration camp atrocities we’ve seen at the cinema). Basterds is wish fulfillment to its very core, a revisionist tale in which the Jews (including Shoshanna, dealing the Third Reich the fatal blow) make the Nazis run scared. Its seventy years of watching Jews herded into boxcars and sent off to a very certain death (in films like Schindler’s List and Shoah) rewritten, a revenge fantasy in which the ultimate “fuck you” is dealt by the cinema itself (both literally and figuratively).

In pure Tarantino fashion, Basterds’ lifeblood is cinema. Scenes of extreme violence doled out at a lightning-fast clip punctuate long stretches wherein characters discuss the merits of Goebbels’ propaganda machine, the work of Leni Riefenstahl and G.W. Pabst, and even a great bit where King Kong is used as an allegory for the American slave trade. (Also notable: characters Aldo Raine, Hugo Stiglitz and Ed Fenech are all tributes to classic character actors of the same name). Of course the fall of the Third Reich must take place in a cinema — where else can history be rewritten with such unflappable confidence as on the silver screen? Those expecting an “accurate” account need look elsewhere; Basterds is pure fantasy, and oh how joyously crazy it all is. It’s a film where we’re asked to cheer on an S.S. officer getting his skull bashed in (as the Basterds do themselves), where Hitler is reduced to a raving loony with a ridiculous inferiority complex, a film that makes even “Springtime for Hitler” look like a History channel special in comparison. It’s fiction totally run amuck, tearing apart and chewing on things as they happened and presenting its own version of how things should have happened. And tribute to Tarantino’s innumerable talents, by the end we’re cheering louder and harder than we really have any right to be — it’s a film so gleefully preposterous we have no choice but to throw preconceptions to the wind and just roll with it.

In perhaps the film’s most tongue-in-cheek moment, Pitt’s Aldo stares right into the camera after carving a swastika in the head of a rather deserving party and muses “I think this just might be my masterpiece.” (Wink wink, nudge nudge.) While Basterds certainly finds the filmmaker back on the right track, calling it a masterpiece may be a bit of a stretch. It’s certainly not a film without its faults; it runs a bit overlong, has a few jokes that fall flat and stay there, and may be just a bit unsettling (as watching anyone beaten to death will be, no matter what uniform they happen to be wearing). It’s not a perfect film, no — and its status as Tarantino’s “best since Pulp Fiction” is highly debatable (this reviewer still prefers Jackie Brown). What it is, in the most basic sense, is a roller coaster ride captured to celluloid: It starts at a leisured pace, builds and builds, climaxes, starts over again, and finishes with a hell of a bang.

I’ve seen Inglourious Basterds three times now, and each time I find myself loving the film more and more. All faults aside, it manages to accomplish something most films only hope to aspire to (and rarely achieve): It makes you want to see it again right after, to pick up on what you worry you might have missed, to experience the highs and lows all over again as if you’re doing so with a fresh pair of eyes and a clear mind. Despite its myriad flaws it ingratiates itself with the viewer in such a way that you forgive and forget what would be death knells in lesser films. In other words, it’s a film that, viewed in the right state of mind, you really just can’t help but fall in love with. After Jackie Brown I must admit I worried we’d never see that side of Quentin again; Basterds proves it may still be too early to put his first three back on that pedestal, to sigh and say he’ll never reach those heights again so why even bother trying. In the end, Basterds proves above all else you can’t count Quentin out — he can still wow you, still floor you, and still make you experience joy and unabashed love for a film that marches proudly to its own beat, expectations and preconceptions be damned.

And in the end, it leaves one anxious to see what Tarantino will come up with next.

Cliffs Notes: Shit is self-consciously over-the-top, and it's doing so to make a point. Whether or not you agree with that point doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Cheebs]

The best parts in IB were with shoushana the theater owner how can  anyone hate on that part! Though I am a sucker for anything in French. Speaking of French I finally saw Le Petit Soldat for the first time. Not Godard's best but a great movie. Anna Karina . Can't wait for the full wide re-release in theaters of Breathless this summer even though it is one of his weaker movies from that period.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

You need to see Sympathy for the Devil. It's halfway between Godard's playful 60s stuff and the fucking out there 70s politco mind fuckery. Also, Mick Jagger.

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

The Black Panther scene is amazing.

[Ichirou]

That's actually a really good piece of writing, Shake.  Why'd you leave JPRaup's site anyway?  You were seriously the best writer they had.

[Ichirou]

On a side note, I'm so glad Shake and Cheebs are back.  I'll probably be posting way more in this thread now that they are.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

That's actually a really good piece of writing, Shake.  Why'd you leave JPRaup's site anyway?  You were seriously the best writer they had.

That's why.  :tbslol

[Cheebs]

You need to see Sympathy for the Devil. It's halfway between Godard's playful 60s stuff and the fucking out there 70s politco mind fuckery. Also, Mick Jagger.

I downloaded that, I plan to watch it this week. godard

[Ichirou]

That's actually a really good piece of writing, Shake.  Why'd you leave JPRaup's site anyway?  You were seriously the best writer they had.

That's why.  :tbslol

I actually started to read that site when Cheebs (or was it PD?) mentioned you had started working for it.  The breaking point for me was not the sub-AICN-level written reviews, but the fawning interview one of the guys did with one of the producers of the fucking G.I. Joe movie.

You really were way too good for them.  That IB article is really well done.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Yeah, and whenever I tried to get them to actually proofread what the fuck they were writing or reconsider writing editorials on why Michael Bay is awesome and haters ftl they would act like I had e-leprosy or something. That site was (and still is, from what I've seen) such a piece of shit.

[brawndolicious]

ninteho, it's the fact that Tarantino is taking something that filmmakers do ALL THE TIME (rewrite history) and being completely blatant and out there about it.  I thought it was a pretty brave thing to do, honestly.  He could've gotten tons of backlash from Jewish groups.

The part about Jews being driven to psychopathic bloodlust against any random Nazi is fine with me, honestly.  The part with the cinema-owner's grand plans to execute the top brass of the Nazi leadership as they appreciate their propaganda is specifically where it loses me.  There's no way I can keep interested in something that forced.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

ninteho, it's the fact that Tarantino is taking something that filmmakers do ALL THE TIME (rewrite history) and being completely blatant and out there about it.  I thought it was a pretty brave thing to do, honestly.  He could've gotten tons of backlash from Jewish groups.

The part about Jews being driven to psychopathic bloodlust against any random Nazi is fine with me, honestly.  The part with the cinema-owner's grand plans to execute the top brass of the Nazi leadership as they appreciate their propaganda is specifically where it loses me.  There's no way I can keep interested in something that forced.

Hmm, sounds more like you had a problem with the execution than the idealogy. But still, even if you don't like how it plays out you can't really say it's "just a popcorn" flick. I mean I'm not particularly fond of Schindler's List myself, but I wouldn't venture to say it's just an empty blockbuster or anything like that.

[Ichirou]

Yeah, and whenever I tried to get them to actually proofread what the fuck they were writing or reconsider writing editorials on why Michael Bay is awesome and haters ftl they would act like I had e-leprosy or something. That site was (and still is, from what I've seen) such a piece of shit.

TBH, I figured you were working for them for the access you could get to festivals and interviews and shit.

[Cheebs]

ninteho, it's the fact that Tarantino is taking something that filmmakers do ALL THE TIME (rewrite history) and being completely blatant and out there about it.  I thought it was a pretty brave thing to do, honestly.  He could've gotten tons of backlash from Jewish groups.

The part about Jews being driven to psychopathic bloodlust against any random Nazi is fine with me, honestly.  The part with the cinema-owner's grand plans to execute the top brass of the Nazi leadership as they appreciate their propaganda is specifically where it loses me.  There's no way I can keep interested in something that forced.

Favorite scene from any movie last year
[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[brawndolicious]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.