The Official Movie Thread

[Blurry_Dreams]

if i was looking at someone who's never seen either unbreakable or split
i'd tell them to watch unbreakable instead of split
if you only see unbreakable, glass works as an understandable sequel to unbreakable even without seeing split
(or vice versa maybe)
and unbreakable was definitely a better movie than split
my only problems with unbreakable were
1) it was never advertised as a "superhero movie", it was advertised as "from the director of the 6th sense"
so a huge-ass-amount of the people who saw it in the theater (as opposed to on video) were the specific people that knew nothing about superheros when they walked into the theater
2)the "deleted scenes" on the DVD were nothing but scenes that really should have actually been in the theatrical release of the movie
you can even clearly see where each of those scenes would have been if they had not been "deleted"

my problems with split

Spoiler

there's 23 separate personalities, and the personalities argue with each other, and 23 is just way too many, the ones that want to kidnap girls actually manage to do so and then they argue about what to do with the girls that have been kidnapped, you don't need an entire 23 personalities for that plot, it really would have worked a whole lot better with a much smaller amount of personalities, also the person with multiple personalities is also a person with superpowers which could have been cool but it was executed badly (is it horror, is it thriller, is it superhero, which genre is this movie??)

 

[rms]

Glass makes up two hours of Split within like 15 seconds of the movie, but whatever

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

James McAvoy's character has a lot of different personalities and some of them are evil
that sentence is all you really need to know before you watch glass

 

[CiG]

 

[RadicalThrasher]

Np

Spoiler

@CiG , @TechnicalBarbarity So much death......Z grade classic!

 

[CiG]

I'm watching the video it's at 1 minute 44 seconds and the body count is already at 32.

 

[CiG]

NW:

 

[Einherjar86]

I love Cube--the sequels, not so much.

 

[CiG]

I love Cube--the sequels, not so much.

Yeah man, sweet flick. I've never seen any of the sequels though, probably a good thing.

NW:

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

a joker movie without batman in it??
i'm calling it now
this movie is gonna suck

 

[CiG]

a joker movie without batman in it??
i'm calling it now
this movie is gonna suck

It will be good specifically because it won't be a capefag film. Surprised you think it's some big deal for a Joker origins film to not have Batman in it, since it primarily uses The Killing Joke's birth of the Joker segment as its main source.

Can't wait to see it.

 

[challenge_everything]

So Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was fucking awful. Can't believe it has received the praise it has. And I'm not one of those "it's-cool-to-dislike-Tarantino-and-Jackie-Brown-is-his-only-good-film" people.

It's tonally all over the place. There is very little narrative structure. It drags and meanders in a way that you never thought a Tarantino movie could. It doesn't capture the zeitgeist at all. The soundtrack, for a film set in the 60s, is bland and poorly used. Narration is used in an irrelevant, unnecessary and inconsistent way. The pop culture references feel forced and don't contribute to the story (for example a detour into spaghetti westerns feels little more than a way for Tarantino to say "I'm cool, I've watched these obscure movies").

Additional thoughts in spoiler.

Spoiler

• I get that it's a revisionist history, looking nostalgically at a golden era while whitewashing it's flaws, but shit, it's downright offensive to have Pitt's character ask to see the ID of a young girl who offers him a BJ. It's the lamest comeback by Tarantino who has not emerged well from the Weinstein era relevations.
• Margot Robbie's character serves little purpose other than being a diversion for our expectations. Presumably she is supposed to be a symbol of innocence but her character has no depth or interest all. What was the point of the scene where she watches her own movie in the cinema?
• Tarantino copped out from really examining Polanski's character.
• The sudden, violent twist ending sequence is pure tokenism, a cheap hit giving the fanboys what they want
• The plot thread involving DiCaprio's mid life crisis as an acting is probably the most interesting thing about this movie. Pity Tarantino couldn't centre the film around this.

 

[CiG]

'Tino has been slowly disappearing up his own ass since Inglourious Basterds.

 

[challenge_everything]

Yep, somehow I went in with expectations that this would be better than Hateful Eight and Django but it even made those films look good in comparison.

 

[Einherjar86]

So Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was fucking awful. Can't believe it has received the praise it has. And I'm not one of those "it's-cool-to-dislike-Tarantino-and-Jackie-Brown-is-his-only-good-film" people.

It's tonally all over the place. There is very little narrative structure. It drags and meanders in a way that you never thought a Tarantino movie could. It doesn't capture the zeitgeist at all. The soundtrack, for a film set in the 60s, is bland and poorly used. Narration is used in an irrelevant, unnecessary and inconsistent way. The pop culture references feel forced and don't contribute to the story (for example a detour into spaghetti westerns feels little more than a way for Tarantino to say "I'm cool, I've watched these obscure movies").

Additional thoughts in spoiler.

Spoiler

• I get that it's a revisionist history, looking nostalgically at a golden era while whitewashing it's flaws, but shit, it's downright offensive to have Pitt's character ask to see the ID of a young girl who offers him a BJ. It's the lamest comeback by Tarantino who has not emerged well from the Weinstein era relevations.
• Margot Robbie's character serves little purpose other than being a diversion for our expectations. Presumably she is supposed to be a symbol of innocence but her character has no depth or interest all. What was the point of the scene where she watches her own movie in the cinema?
• Tarantino copped out from really examining Polanski's character.
• The sudden, violent twist ending sequence is pure tokenism, a cheap hit giving the fanboys what they want
• The plot thread involving DiCaprio's mid life crisis as an acting is probably the most interesting thing about this movie. Pity Tarantino couldn't centre the film around this.

I haven't seen the film; but based on what I've heard from peers and read in reviews, this is pretty spot on.

 

[CiG]

I always go with expectations because he is who he is, but at this point I think seeing the new Tarantino is a stronger tradition than liking the new Tarantino. Though his new stuff definitely gets a lot of love from the masses, so he is tapping into something.

 

[challenge_everything]

I can see how Tarantino fanboys would enjoy this movie (there were plenty of them cheering and whooping in the cinema) but I suspect most people here will just find it pandering and lowest common denominator stuff.

 

[CiG]

Ultimately I think I'm just bored with his revisionist history bullshit, it always felt to me like an excuse to avoid building his own world and characters anymore, and instead they just act as a box for him to cram his masturbatory script-writing into.

The slave era, Nazi Germany, the 19th century American west, and now 1969 Hollywood, these are all times and places with their own already built in history and then Tarantino just shoves a bunch of Tarantinoisms into them. I've definitely grown very cynical about his stuff since the Kill Bill movies. The references to other stuff he sprinkles throughout his movies are cool, but ultimately redundant if the movie itself sucks.

Edit: I guess I'll see for myself whenever I get around to seeing OUATIH.

 

[challenge_everything]

I think all of those concerns will be bang on.

 

[Bloopy]

Ultimately I think I'm just bored with his revisionist history bullshit, it always felt to me like an excuse to avoid building his own world and characters anymore, and instead they just act as a box for him to cram his masturbatory script-writing into.

Exactly. They just seem like lazy adolescent fantasies. I'm fairly easy-going and I was ok with most of OUATIH, except for the ending and especially the fact that knowing about the Tate Murders meant I was distracted for the whole film waiting to see how the murders are handled, only to then find that I didn't like the part I was waiting for. So I felt it was his worst film yet. Basterds and Django did little for me as well, but I thought The Hateful Eight was alright.