Toggle sidebar

OT: Let's talk about movies and TV - Part XXVII

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Per Sjoblom said:
Has anyone here seen the film Sinister? It was in a list with Halloween movies that are supposed to be scary? I noticed that is on Peacock the NBC streaming service.
Click to expand...
Im not sure Id say its scary, there's not much jump scare from what I remember, but it is unsettling. Im usually scared shitless of any horror movie, but this one I could watch.

Its pretty good, for the genre, not gonna lie. This one, the Babadook, Heriditary are some of the movies I enjoyed lately.

Also the Peel movies Get out and Us (I LOVED US.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Per Sjoblom and Runner77
Mrb1p said:
Im not sure Id say its scary, there's not much jump scare from what I remember, but it is unsettling. Im usually scared shitless of any horror movie, but this one I could watch.

Its pretty good, for the genre, not gonna lie. This one, the Babadook, Heriditary are some of the movies I enjoyed lately.

Also the Peel movies Get out and Us (I LOVED US.)
Click to expand...


Thanks!
I have the Babadook but I haven't watched it yet, sounds like it is worth watching!
 
  • Like
Reactions: overlords, Mrb1p and Runner77
Ozymandias said:
Unfortunately, Nazis are mostly always caricatured and simplistic in movie portrayal.

I don't even see the point of imitating Tarantino's work. I used to love his movies in my early 20's, but my outlook has changed tremendously and I find his movies boring and the dialogues empty of meaning.
Click to expand...
Was never a fan of QT.
 
James Bond, one of the iconic roles in film, will ever be associated with the first (and for many the best).

Enjoyed several other of SC's films too, The Hill, The Hunt for Red October, The Untouchables, The Rock...

A legend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: angusyoung, Catanddogguitarrr and Redux91
Anyone who doesn't worship at the shrine of Pulp Fiction will be banned for life! Tarantino's work may lack the substance of film's greatest directors, but his style puts him in league with other classic directors known for their unique styles, like Hitchcock. Hitch wasn't strong on deep messages, but his films bit directly into your taste buds. How many times do you watch a scene build suspense on unusual, angular camera work and think, "That's so Hitchcock"? Same with Tarantino - he's created a groove that many style-heavy directors have copied as their archetype.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJyellow, Catanddogguitarrr and overlords
Lshap said:
Anyone who doesn't worship at the shrine of Pulp Fiction will be banned for life! Tarantino's work may lack the substance of film's greatest directors, but his style puts him in league with other classic directors known for their unique styles, like Hitchcock. Hitch wasn't strong on deep messages, but his films bit directly into your taste buds. How many times do you watch a scene build suspense on unusual, angular camera work and think, "That's so Hitchcock"? Same with Tarantino - he's created a groove that many style-heavy directors have copied as their archetype.
Click to expand...

Yeah i gotta say, Pulp Fiction is WAY up there for me period, its the greatest written and best dialogue written film of all time imo. No way i dont make time for it if its on TV

I dont believe him for a second when he says he will stop at his 10th , 5-6-7 years will pass by and he'll start hearing that old music again..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJyellow and overlords
dinodebino said:
Borgen is one I liked.
Click to expand...

I just started this, am at S1, Ep. 3 and I'm loving it.

There are three seasons X 10 episodes, each running approx. one hour.

It's great political intrigue, the acting is superb.

I started watching in English as it was my Netflix default setting but switched over to Danish as soon as I saw that the speech of the actors wasn't perfectly synchronized with their lips. I always prefer to hear the original voices of the actors and to read the subtitles instead, even if it demands more attention.

Based on what I'm seeing so far, it reminds me a bit of the machinations behind House of Cards, minus the dramatic music and the criminal elements, but the rest of it involves deft moves and savvy for the ascension to power. The lead actress is perfect in her role, she commands attention but has no illusions of grandeur -- you see her juggling the imperatives of living a normal life while wrestling with the power that comes with the decisions she takes.

So far, so good. If this is any indication on how the rest of the series will work, I am all in.

Dino, you've hit a homerun with this one, my friend.

If you're looking for a new series in this genre, what are you waiting for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Holystik
RIP

The first and the best

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redux91, Chili and Runner77
Lshap said:
Anyone who doesn't worship at the shrine of Pulp Fiction will be banned for life! Tarantino's work may lack the substance of film's greatest directors, but his style puts him in league with other classic directors known for their unique styles, like Hitchcock. Hitch wasn't strong on deep messages, but his films bit directly into your taste buds. How many times do you watch a scene build suspense on unusual, angular camera work and think, "That's so Hitchcock"? Same with Tarantino - he's created a groove that many style-heavy directors have copied as their archetype.
Click to expand...
I liked it and I think its now the expected oponion to say you hate QT, not sure thats too fair to his actual work though.
 
I gave Hunters a shot but I gave up 20 minutes into the show.

Might circle back to it at some point, but my CPM (cringe per minute) was a bit too high to soldier through the first episode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overlords
Hunters was one of my early Covid-lockdown binges back in April. It felt like I was watching campy revenge-porn that uses the Holocaust as its plot reference, just like it uses Tarantino as its visual reference. The story lands somewhere between one of those 1970s Holocaust thrillers (Boys From Brazil / Marathon Man) and an Avengers flic. Entertaining, fast-moving, twists and turns, but not overly deep. The characters are paper-thin, written like comic book heroes and villains.

FWIW, season-two has been confirmed by Amazon, with a release date somewhere in mid-2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrb1p
Lshap said:
Anyone who doesn't worship at the shrine of Pulp Fiction will be banned for life! Tarantino's work may lack the substance of film's greatest directors, but his style puts him in league with other classic directors known for their unique styles, like Hitchcock. Hitch wasn't strong on deep messages, but his films bit directly into your taste buds. How many times do you watch a scene build suspense on unusual, angular camera work and think, "That's so Hitchcock"? Same with Tarantino - he's created a groove that many style-heavy directors have copied as their archetype.
Click to expand...

Please don't compare Tarantino to Hitch. Hitchcock was a master of ambiance and suspense.

Tarantino is what a tabloid journal is to fine print.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peate
Ozymandias said:
Please don't compare Tarantino to Hitch. Hitchcock was a master of ambiance and suspense.

Tarantino is what a tabloid journal is to fine print.
Click to expand...
Disagree. I'm a huge fan of Hitchcock, but the greatness of his films came from Hitch's style of direction, not from any inherent 'greatness' of the films themselves. When film classes analyze Hitchcock, they look at the camera angles, the pacing, the music. Think about all those iconic scenes in Psycho, North by Northwest, Rear Window, Birds, etc.. You can distill those great moments down to specific still images, which is a testament to the strength of Hitchcock's visual stamp. Even his leading ladies had a blonde, wide-eyed sameness to their look and function (won't get into Hitchcock's misogyny, obviously). Hitchcock was a superb stylist who dressed up average stories with elite direction. There's nothing deep about his films, just like none of his films got the best acting out of his actors (partly because he had such little respect for actors).

Tarantino is one of the best film-stylists out there today. Like Hitch, we recognize his visual style the moment we see it. The bold primary colours, the comic-book graphics, the weirdly anxious music. Like Hitch, Tarantino's developed his own canon of famous moments and memes, and his directing style has become a blueprint for tons of directors to reference. And, like Hitchcock, there's no inherent greatness in his films. They're superb eye-candy.

Hitchcock definitely gets the edge when it comes to original vision. Nobody made films that looked like his. On the other hand, Tarantino is an unapologetic copycat, a fanboy of Japanese and Western styles who shamelessly funnels both genres into his work. But Tarantino gets the edge in stories, obviously because he writes them himself (which I guess falls under a different job title than Director). He also has a big lead when it comes to acting performances. Unlike Hitchcock, Tarantino loves his actors and enlarges them into bigger than life personae. Hitchcock reduces his actors to moveable pieces on a game board.

Bottom line - comparing both directors was something I just mentioned off the top if my head. As I write this post it's obvious their films and the eras in which they're made are radically different, so I'm not reducing the argument down to a simplistic, "Tarantino is the heir to Hitchcock". They're both great stylists, but I don't think either of them have a claim to being among the greatest of directors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DJyellow, Fenris, Redux91 and 1 other person
Lshap said:
Disagree. I'm a huge fan of Hitchcock, but the greatness of his films came from Hitch's style of direction, not from any inherent 'greatness' of the films themselves. When film classes analyze Hitchcock, they look at the camera angles, the pacing, the music. Think about all those iconic scenes in Psycho, North by Northwest, Rear Window, Birds, etc.. You can distill those great moments down to specific still images, which is a testament to the strength of Hitchcock's visual stamp. Even his leading ladies had a blonde, wide-eyed sameness to their look and function (won't get into Hitchcock's misogyny, obviously). Hitchcock was a superb stylist who dressed up average stories with elite direction. There's nothing deep about his films, just like none of his films got the best acting out of his actors (partly because he had such little respect for actors).

Tarantino is one of the best film-stylists out there today. Like Hitch, we recognize his visual style the moment we see it. The bold primary colours, the comic-book graphics, the weirdly anxious music. Like Hitch, Tarantino's developed his own canon of famous moments and memes, and his directing style has become a blueprint for tons of directors to reference. And, like Hitchcock, there's no inherent greatness in his films. They're superb eye-candy.

Hitchcock definitely gets the edge when it comes to original vision. Nobody made films that looked like his. On the other hand, Tarantino is an unapologetic fanboy of Japanese and Western styles, and has shamelessly funnelled both genres into his work. But Tarantino gets the edge in stories, obviously because he writes them himself (which I guess falls under a different job title than Director). He also has a big lead when it comes to acting performances. Unlike Hitchcock, Tarantino loves his actors and enlarges them into bigger than life personae. Hitchcock reduces his actors to moveable pieces on a game board.

Bottom line - comparing both directors was something I just mentioned off the top if my head. As I write this post it's obvious their films and the eras in which they're made are radically different, so I'm not reducing the argument down to a simplistic, "Tarantino is the heir to Hitchcock". They're both great stylists, but I don't think either of them have a claim to being among the greatest of directors.
Click to expand...

When it comes to visual styles, a guy like Fincher is a lot more recognizable and he doesn't need gratuitous and sensationalistic pulp to make something interesting.

I disagree about Hitchcock. A lot of details went into creating atmosphere, which is something I've rarely felt with a q-tip movie.

Btw, i spent two years in the comm-cinema program, so I'm pretty aware of what they talk about in film classes, doesn't mean I drank every word as gospel. It's art. Some really looove Truffaut, while I can't stand his movies. I went to UQAM and had the chance of having Denis Villeneure pop-up fir a Q&A once, as he was a student a the U.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Habs Icing
Ozymandias said:
When it comes to visual styles, a guy like Fincher is a lot more recognizable and he doesn't need gratuitous and sensationalistic pulp to make something interesting.

I disagree about Hitchcock. A lot of details went into creating atmosphere, which is something I've rarely felt with a q-tip movie.

Btw, i spent two years in the comm-cinema program, so I'm pretty aware of what they talk about in film classes, doesn't mean I drank every word as gospel. It's art. Some really looove Truffaut, while I can't stand his movies. I went to UQAM and had the chance of having Denis Villeneure pop-up fir a Q&A once, as he was a student a the U.
Click to expand...
Fincher is terrific, not to mention a Hitchcock fan, but more recognizable than Tarantino? I'll fight you on that one.

I also have my film-geek cred. I was in Communication Studies in Concordia (film, TV, radio) and was the site admin for a film review website a decade ago. But I never met a premiere director like Denis Villeneuve - that's awesome! I loved Arrival - one of my favourite sci-fi films of the past 20 years!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redux91 and Mrb1p
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom