Justcrazy
ATG
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Runs
- 108,419
long time seen no movies. Wanna watch a hollywood masala soon 

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Btw James, omitting Kubrick's 2001 from your list of greatest movies by him is as close to a criminal offense as they come, I would even put Shining in there.
QT's Pulp is arguably one of best movies of the last century in my opinion. But he has really gone astray since then. Inglorious still had its moments but Django was just horrific. A good case of why sometimes being the writer and director doesn't work, he seemed too much in love with his own words at times. If this was his Mel Brooks take on slavery than I would understand but in interviews he really seemed to be aiming to make the definite slavery movie and what a mockery it turned out to be, you could almost imagine hearing him laughing his ass off after shooting some of the violent scenes. I was certainly disgusted. The violence in Reservoir Fogs and Pulp seemed to have a realist flavor to them, a certain matter of factness. He will still be recognized as great and I'm all for it, just don't believe he should be raised to such high standards when he delivers duds like he did with Django.
Btw James, omitting Kubrick's 2001 from your list of greatest movies by him is as close to a criminal offense as they come, I would even put Shining in there.
'Bheja Fry'
A good light comedy film.....
2001 I'd say is good rather than great. There are some great moments and it is an audacious work, but the storyline is completely incomprehensible and the film seems sadly dated. Can you tell me what the film is actually about? 2001 fans often slip up when posed this question.
And definitely, definitely not The Shining. Leatherface is right. His most overrated film.
Watched it again yesterday! It´s far better than how I described it back then. A hilarious film!
Zodiac is the best crime thriller I've seen.
2001 I'd say is good rather than great. There are some great moments and it is an audacious work, but the storyline is completely incomprehensible and the film seems sadly dated. Can you tell me what the film is actually about? 2001 fans often slip up when posed this question.
.
2001 I'd say is good rather than great. There are some great moments and it is an audacious work, but the storyline is completely incomprehensible and the film seems sadly dated. Can you tell me what the film is actually about? 2001 fans often slip up when posed this question.
And definitely, definitely not The Shining. Leatherface is right. His most overrated film.
An alien race turns up in prehistory and leaves a monolith which speeds up human evolution. Then when we reach the monn millions of years later, another monolith is there and points out the way to a third. We send a space probe out to find the third, which is a star gate to the alien homeworld. There our evolution is accellerated again and one human evolves into pure consciousness, returning to Earth as a god.
I don't get the criticism of Django fights. We are talking about the same QT who has made a movie during which one woman cuts through 200 people with a katana that has no dent in it at the end. The gunfights were never meant to be realistic.
The movie suffers on other points but certainly not that one.
Elysium
From the director of "District 9", this again is a science fiction action movie. The earth has become overpopulated, diseased and have run out of resources so the upper class people have made another planet/ship for themselves where they have all migrated which is basically like the Beverly Hills. They have machines there which can heal anything and people on Earth are not allowed to go there. Fascinating premise, once again Neil Blomkamp using Scifi as a means to explore issues of illegal migration, universal health care, over population, exploitation like District 9 explored apartheid, ghettoization, racism and xenophobia. Even though Elysium is only half as good as the brilliant District 9, it still provokes a lot of interesting questions and forces us to think.
I don't get the criticism of Django fights. We are talking about the same QT who has made a movie during which one woman cuts through 200 people with a katana that has no dent in it at the end. The gunfights were never meant to be realistic.
The movie suffers on other points but certainly not that one.
Half as good is accurate. It could have been so much better. It was too convenient at times and had some plot holes. D9 was much more polished and well explored.
A lot of times it had potential to veer off into amazing territory but it continued on its path to just above average.
Everyone knows QT is a rip-off artist, it's the most well known criticism of him. Still, it takes talent to rip-off in such masterful way and make something unique. After all who is not a rip-off. Does Spielberg not rips off from Hitchcock or Lucas ripping off Kurosawa.
I would have loved for him to rip off some western for Django but it's the only movie by QT which after watching I wished I hadn't wasted my time on. But thanks to the over enthusiastic reviews by QT fanboys on PP, I got tricked into watching it.
I'm not sure what he wanted, maybe he thought by showing such revenge the black community will come out of the theatre satisfied that someone has finally avenged the painful period in their history by properly kicking the white mans ass. It's not a surprise that every self respecting black intellectual who saw the movie found it disturbing and a complete mockery of their history. While QT thinks he knows more about blacks then they do since his mom had black boyfriends who he use to hang out with as child or because he's watched enough black exploitation movies and listened to enough black music that he embodies a black person better than they do themselves. Obviously, all you really see is a director playing out his childish fantasies and in the process exploiting his protagonist rather then redeeming him.
Th ending was pretty powerful though, must give it that.
Everyone knows QT is a rip-off artist, it's the most well known criticism of him. Still, it takes talent to rip-off in such masterful way and make something unique. After all who is not a rip-off. Does Spielberg not rips off from Hitchcock or Lucas ripping off Kurosawa.
I would have loved for him to rip off some western for Django but it's the only movie by QT which after watching I wished I hadn't wasted my time on. But thanks to the over enthusiastic reviews by QT fanboys on PP, I got tricked into watching it.
You do realize that HE intentionally makes such films because he is a huge fan of some of these genres and most of his movies are comedic homages to them in the first place. His movies are not to be taken seriously. Think of Inglorius Basterds... do you really think that was a serious WWII movie? None of his movies are like that. They are meant to be eye candy and homage to spaghetti westerns, WWII era movies, kung fu, action movies. Thats all.
If you are going in there hoping to take away a moral lesson or two, you are sorely mistaken. Just expect wild and crazy fun and action. Thats all!
Ripoffs are lauded in films for 'paying homage'. Lol it's a weird industry.
Ripoffs are lauded in films for 'paying homage'. Lol it's a weird industry.
It was powerful. But would have been moreso if the remainder of the movie built up to it in a better way.
I just think the characters weren't as well developed, nowhere near as much.
Part of the problem was the big name actors. Should have stuck with newbies and we would have had a much better film.
These highly paid actors just thinking that them showing up will mean it'll be a success killed it for me.
Matt Damon replaying his Bourne role for the infinite time also didn't help.
The same black community and intellectuals that find nothing disturbing with Spike Lee movies who has the complex you are describing amplified several times, not to mention his real life antics? I don't see why Tarantino being white should play against him when we don't expect black directors to make nuanced movies, as opposed to self victimisation and childish fantasies.
Django as a whole is a flawed movie, taken as a slavery movie or a western or whatever. The fight sequences are fine, only in the end, Django seems to have come into possession of some special gun the bullets of which explode the whole body like a bomb. I'm not sure if this technology was available back then.
Danny Boyle does a good job with hiring (at the time) relatively unknown ensemble casts - Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, Sunshine, Slumdog - to keep the focus on the quality of the film, and when people see how good the film is, the profiles of the actors raise anyway. What a director. Turned down a knighthood.
Has anyone seen "Trance" Boyle's latest offering?
QT makes B grade exploitation movies, what do you expect?
The place beyond the pines
Great movie. Great performances by the leads. I wouldn't call it a classic but it surely had elements required to be a serious movie.
Captain Philips.
Not the best from Tom Hanks' stables, but well worth a watch.
Can you guys recommend me a good thriller movie?
Can you guys recommend me a good thriller movie?