This year, we're getting two entirely original films from two of the greatest living directors on the planet. It's been a couple of year since we've seen a film from either of these legends but the question is... which one has you more excited?
List: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls046913949/
Poll: https://www.imdb.com/poll/WGmaQjImieY/
List: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls046913949/
Poll: https://www.imdb.com/poll/WGmaQjImieY/
Posted 1 year ago
Peter, Champion
Jessica, Champion
The Irishman
I think QT is great by the magnitude his popularity had reached over the world and the way he became a brandname like Hitchcock used to be in his time, but I think his post-Kill Bill work has been over-praised. Someone who works in the movie business told me that if you've got to make a great movie and a bad movie, you've got to start with the great one because if the bad comes after, they'll find a reason to praise it, if you start with the bad, you won't even have the opportunity to make the great. QT didn't start with great movies, he peaked with them...his first 5 movies were so great that he could have made a Michael Bay-style of film, everyone would have found a "reason" to praise him. That said, I liked his last film and I'm looking forward to seeing that one because I happen to be a big New Hollywood Movie Buff, I read the book "Easy Riders and Raging Bull" and saw the documentary... and when I knew QT was making the film, I hoped Margot Robbie would play Sharon Tate because she could be her twin... from the teaser, I was impressed by the Bruce Lee lookalike (and I even smell an Oscar nom for the actor)... and I hope Al Pacino will get a juicy role, who knows, Oscar worthy maybe?
You can mention that both films star Al Pacino in two anticipated come-back roles, that's a connection worth to be mentioned....
Anyway I still wait for Marty's movie, I love QT but come on, Marty, Pacy, Bobby, Pesci all together in a mob movie, that's a Vito Corleone offer...
I think QT is great by the magnitude his popularity had reached over the world and the way he became a brandname like Hitchcock used to be in his time, but I think his post-Kill Bill work has been over-praised. Someone who works in the movie business told me that if you've got to make a great movie and a bad movie, you've got to start with the great one because if the bad comes after, they'll find a reason to praise it, if you start with the bad, you won't even have the opportunity to make the great. QT didn't start with great movies, he peaked with them...his first 5 movies were so great that he could have made a Michael Bay-style of film, everyone would have found a "reason" to praise him. That said, I liked his last film and I'm looking forward to seeing that one because I happen to be a big New Hollywood Movie Buff, I read the book "Easy Riders and Raging Bull" and saw the documentary... and when I knew QT was making the film, I hoped Margot Robbie would play Sharon Tate because she could be her twin... from the teaser, I was impressed by the Bruce Lee lookalike (and I even smell an Oscar nom for the actor)... and I hope Al Pacino will get a juicy role, who knows, Oscar worthy maybe?
You can mention that both films star Al Pacino in two anticipated come-back roles, that's a connection worth to be mentioned....
Anyway I still wait for Marty's movie, I love QT but come on, Marty, Pacy, Bobby, Pesci all together in a mob movie, that's a Vito Corleone offer...
When I read what Tarantino's new movie was about I had my reservations. Even blowing up Hitler (who has become a cartoon villain in popular culture separate from the historical figure) doesn't test the boundaries of good taste as much as making an entertaining story out of the actual victim of a mass murder.
But now that Sharon Tate's sister has read the script and given her approval, maybe the movie is taking a direction I didn't foresee.
Anyway, what a year for Al Pacino. QT and of course especially Marty are the two directors he still needed to work with. The Irishman tops OUATIH's casting, of course, because Keitel, Pacino and Pesci never worked together before, and hell, any combination out of De Niro, Scorsese and Pacino is spectacular already.
And at this point, I don't think QT has another bunny in his hat to surprise us with, it's more that he is repeating himself in an entertaining way. But he can't mature the same way Scorsese can. So yeah, The Irishman for me as well.
But now that Sharon Tate's sister has read the script and given her approval, maybe the movie is taking a direction I didn't foresee.
Anyway, what a year for Al Pacino. QT and of course especially Marty are the two directors he still needed to work with. The Irishman tops OUATIH's casting, of course, because Keitel, Pacino and Pesci never worked together before, and hell, any combination out of De Niro, Scorsese and Pacino is spectacular already.
And at this point, I don't think QT has another bunny in his hat to surprise us with, it's more that he is repeating himself in an entertaining way. But he can't mature the same way Scorsese can. So yeah, The Irishman for me as well.
(Edited)
Exactly, the merit of QT is that he's able to take the most absurd stuff, cartoony or unbelievable to the point of self-parody and yet mold them into terrific thrillers or entertaining pictures, he's like these creative cooks who can take basic ingredients and make something special... of course, we get used to how "special" he is but that's why he gets his deserved credit as a terrific storyteller.
What a year for Al, seriously, I'll lose all hope if he doesn't get an Oscar nom this year... I don't take his chances for granted, I think from the first scenes, I'll be able to assess his 'nominability'... if he's really delivering something special or if he's just being competent like in movies that didn't earn him anything, like "The Insider" or "Donnie Brasco". Even a nuanced performance can be a blessing, or if he's really the scene-stealer with QT (which is saying a lot but QT movies have always been great vehicles for supporting performances)
I'm not a huge Oscar-buff but I want Al to get his 9th nomination and beat Denzel Washington... and this comes from someone who thought Denzel deserved it in '92 for "Malcolm X"
What a year for Al, seriously, I'll lose all hope if he doesn't get an Oscar nom this year... I don't take his chances for granted, I think from the first scenes, I'll be able to assess his 'nominability'... if he's really delivering something special or if he's just being competent like in movies that didn't earn him anything, like "The Insider" or "Donnie Brasco". Even a nuanced performance can be a blessing, or if he's really the scene-stealer with QT (which is saying a lot but QT movies have always been great vehicles for supporting performances)
I'm not a huge Oscar-buff but I want Al to get his 9th nomination and beat Denzel Washington... and this comes from someone who thought Denzel deserved it in '92 for "Malcolm X"
Is Denzel up with anything or why particularly him?
Interesting food for thought in your initial post ElM. I personally didn't care for The Hateful Eight (2015); I just found it the least entertaining and fun of his oeuvre to date.
But now that Sharon Tate's sister has read the script and given her approval, maybe the movie is taking a direction I didn't foresee.That's so awesome @Alb, didn't know that she had approved it - super stoked for OUATIH, I think it's gonna be something different while evoking an era that's incredibly glamorous.
I guess she gave her approval if the nasty details of Sharon Tate's final minutes were cut from the film, I don't think it says anything "thrilling" about the film except that it's respectful to Tate's memory, which is good enough.
Given QT's inclination for bloody over-the-top violence, I don't think he could have featured her death as if she was some character of his own creation. But if the film is expected to get an Oscar nomination for Margot Robbie, I can't see how it would happen without "the" scene... still, what an awful awful death for such a beautiful human being, I'm glad QT's material was good enough not to stir some anger from Tate's family.
As for Denzel, I just have a hunch that he's becoming the new Meryl Streep, some nominations he got were deserved, others were more debatable, and when I saw him in "Fences", I knew he was going to be nominated and he was great indeed, but his performance hit me like a blast of his own ego, it's one thing to be a talented actor and give yourself enough scenes to impress the audience but another to be 80% of the movie and in that 80%, 95% of ranting and making angry 'I-am-what-I-am' speech, and 15% of the movie being Viola Davis and the remaining 5% all the other characters, his sons included.
Then he got that random nom. for "Roman Israel" for reasons we all know and he's going to break the record of MY favorite actor.
Given QT's inclination for bloody over-the-top violence, I don't think he could have featured her death as if she was some character of his own creation. But if the film is expected to get an Oscar nomination for Margot Robbie, I can't see how it would happen without "the" scene... still, what an awful awful death for such a beautiful human being, I'm glad QT's material was good enough not to stir some anger from Tate's family.
As for Denzel, I just have a hunch that he's becoming the new Meryl Streep, some nominations he got were deserved, others were more debatable, and when I saw him in "Fences", I knew he was going to be nominated and he was great indeed, but his performance hit me like a blast of his own ego, it's one thing to be a talented actor and give yourself enough scenes to impress the audience but another to be 80% of the movie and in that 80%, 95% of ranting and making angry 'I-am-what-I-am' speech, and 15% of the movie being Viola Davis and the remaining 5% all the other characters, his sons included.
Then he got that random nom. for "Roman Israel" for reasons we all know and he's going to break the record of MY favorite actor.
I am only excited about The Irishman, I have never liked Quentin Tarantino one bit.
Ah, really? That's too bad, but I can see how his style can turn some people off.
rubyfruit76, Champion
'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'
'Tough choice, though, which makes a great face-off. : )
'Tough choice, though, which makes a great face-off. : )
My choice as well. And thank you :)
rubyfruit76, Champion
Dan Dassow, Champion
I just noticed: Robert De Niro is 1.77m
Frank Sheera was 1.93
Look at this picture closely, they used the Frankenstein Method!! Hint: look the shoes of Robert De Niro.
Frank Sheera was 1.93
Look at this picture closely, they used the Frankenstein Method!! Hint: look the shoes of Robert De Niro.
Frankenstein was a assembled human being. So your analogy is all wet. Bad even.
If you want to point out things like this. Go for it, but use the correct terminology.
A De Nero reference should point out that he's wearing plat's/elevator shoes, from the 70s. Or it's a good thing Dustin Hoffman not playing the role! Or some such thing. But Frankenstein! Seriously...........
If you want to point out things like this. Go for it, but use the correct terminology.
A De Nero reference should point out that he's wearing plat's/elevator shoes, from the 70s. Or it's a good thing Dustin Hoffman not playing the role! Or some such thing. But Frankenstein! Seriously...........
Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion
Ed Jones (XLIX), cinephile was not using "Frankenstein" as anything derogatory.
He meant Frankenstein method as in Universal Monsters version of a character: actors portraying Frankenstein monster (most famously Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and Glenn Strange) all wore largest boots with platform shoes, which increased their height significantly:
Term "Frankenstein boots" is still in slang/informal use today in case of all and any platform shoes. It's not derogatory at all.
He meant Frankenstein method as in Universal Monsters version of a character: actors portraying Frankenstein monster (most famously Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and Glenn Strange) all wore largest boots with platform shoes, which increased their height significantly:
Term "Frankenstein boots" is still in slang/informal use today in case of all and any platform shoes. It's not derogatory at all.
IKT, but it is a bad analogy none the less.
:):)
:):)
Kyle Perez