What was the last movie you've watched? II

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 1883
Joined: March 2009
Location: Leiden
Fight Club

Still awesome...
David emerges from the store slowly. He braces himself against a parked car and then keeps on walking in a nightmarish daze.

WE PULL BACK as David blends in with dozens and dozens of ordinary people, walking on an ordinary street, in an ordinary city.

Posts: 260
Joined: March 2011
Location: London
Mason01 wrote:Jackie Brown (1997)
8/10

Image

Really enjoyable, and full of awesome moments. I think this is rather overlooked in general, the most out of all Tarantino films, but it was really good. Samuel L. Jackson was superb.
I'd say True Romance is the overlooked Tarantino film.

User avatar
Posts: 19186
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Jeebus wrote:
Mason01 wrote:Jackie Brown (1997)
8/10

Image

Really enjoyable, and full of awesome moments. I think this is rather overlooked in general, the most out of all Tarantino films, but it was really good. Samuel L. Jackson was superb.
I'd say True Romance is the overlooked Tarantino film.
But he didn't direct that, so it doesn't -exactly- count.

-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 339
Joined: December 2010
Location: Japan
The Wackness - Didn't really enjoyed it... I mean, I really liked Ben Kingsley performance and the sounstrack was great but... the story was kind of boring. Josh Peck was annoying, it's a shame the whole movie wasn't like the last 10 minutes : more energy, more dynamism. I guess I should have rewatched Trainspotting :D

Posts: 260
Joined: March 2011
Location: London
Vader182 wrote:
Jeebus wrote: I'd say True Romance is the overlooked Tarantino film.
But he didn't direct that, so it doesn't -exactly- count.

-Vader
Yes it does. Tarantino himself (as you know) wrote it and it was his first feature-length script/film. Actually writing the screenplay is of equal importance (or more so) than being the guy behind the camera and it's just as relevant to his filmography as Jackie Brown etc. regardless of who directed it. It's not as if his involvement in the film was non-existent just because he didn't direct it; quite the opposite actually.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot.

-Jeebus

User avatar
Posts: 42463
Joined: May 2010
Jeebus wrote:
Vader182 wrote:
But he didn't direct that, so it doesn't -exactly- count.

-Vader
Yes it does. Tarantino himself (as you know) wrote it and it was his first feature-length script/film. Actually writing the screenplay is of equal importance (or more so) than being the guy behind the camera and it's just as relevant to his filmography as Jackie Brown etc. regardless of who directed it. It's not as if his involvement in the film was non-existent just because he didn't direct it; quite the opposite actually.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot.

-Jeebus
What you saw on screen was more Tony Scott's vision than Tarantino's. :|

User avatar
Posts: 19186
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
allstarr55js wrote:
Jeebus wrote: Yes it does. Tarantino himself (as you know) wrote it and it was his first feature-length script/film. Actually writing the screenplay is of equal importance (or more so) than being the guy behind the camera and it's just as relevant to his filmography as Jackie Brown etc. regardless of who directed it. It's not as if his involvement in the film was non-existent just because he didn't direct it; quite the opposite actually.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot.

-Jeebus
What you saw on screen was more Tony Scott's vision than Tarantino's. :|

....the script is obviously extremely important, but the director is far, far more relevant to the film than anything else.

-Vader

Posts: 260
Joined: March 2011
Location: London
Vader182 wrote:
allstarr55js wrote:
What you saw on screen was more Tony Scott's vision than Tarantino's. :|

....the script is obviously extremely important, but the director is far, far more relevant to the film than anything else.

-Vader
No elaboration? Cool.

-Jeebus

Posts: 18329
Joined: February 2011
Have we determined why Vader signs off yet?

-Mason

Posts: 3861
Joined: August 2009
Jeebus wrote:
Vader182 wrote:

....the script is obviously extremely important, but the director is far, far more relevant to the film than anything else.

-Vader
No elaboration? Cool.

-Jeebus
Well I think what Vader means is that the director can interpret a script in whatever way they feel and that greatly changes the outcome of the final product. It would be interesting to give two very different directors the same script and see how different the resulting films would be.

Locked