Last movie you watched......

I... still don't get it.

 

It's close for me. Based on Top 5s, I'd give the slimmest edge to the Coens, I think (with the obvious caveat that the Top 5 is highly subjective):

1. Miller's Crossing (my favourite movie of all time).
2. No Country For Old Men.
3. Fargo.
4. True Grit.
5. The Big Lebowski.

But their bench is so much deeper. They've made more movies, and their "bad" movies are better than most.

That being said, I've seen all of Tarantino's movies, and several of them more than once. There are Coen Brothers movies that I have not seen. I don't know what that says, except that, yeah: It's close.

 

Tarantino's movies have gotten progressively worse. And longer.
He's THE Hollywood director most in need of a dictatorial film editor.
The Hateful Eight, which is not a bad movie, should have been 40 minutes shorter. He's got like several scenes that 5-8 minutes of nothing more than the stage driving through the snow!!! Why?!??!!!
He did the same thing in Inglorious Basterds (which I think is really over-rated), Django Unchained and Kill Bill. It drives me up a wall.


He could pitch a Charles Darwin action flick to a studio and they would green light it.
T: I want to do a epic film on something untouched by Hollywood: Darwin on the Gallapogos Islands.
Studio Head: What?
T: With a twist! ... There is a killer Komodo dragon terrorizing the turtles.
Studio head: Hrmmmm. How long is the running time?
T: 4 and a half to 6 hours. ... for Part 1. It's Gone with the Wind, meets Mutal of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, meets Guy Fieri's Flavor Town!! it's gonna sizzle, baby. SIZZzle.
SH: Hrmmm ....
T: I have a kick ass sound track planned with Pink Floyd, Queen, Rush, the Butthole Surfers and Tiny Tim. We need Tiny Tim for the 30 minutes turtle chase: think Steve McQueen's Bullit, only with giant Turtles in a tropical setting!
T: DeNiro, Crowe and K. Russell are signed on. Buscemi is dying to get in.
SH: Book it!!!

Fuck me.

Coen Bros > Tarantino is an easy TKO. And I have not seen several of their films.

I will probably see this movie and regret it. Though this one is only 2:45 minutes. Based on the comments here: that's it pretty, but pointless, (like a Kesha song) that's probably still an hour too long.

 

It’s a way inside joke related to something that happened in the movie store where Tarantino worked.

 

Do tell.

 

I may not LOVE every Coen Bros. movie, but I enjoy their craftsmanship and creativity. Tarantino remakes B movies with A-list talent and top level production values.
Pretty good analysis here:

Box Office: Why Quentin Tarantino’s Films Are in Their Own League

I get why his films work. He gets a decent budget and he tells stories without special effects. Actors enjoy acting in a natural environment, rather than a green screen and working with other big-time actors. I also think Tarantino has become a director actors WANT to work with - and his movies tend to be both popular and critical faves. I stand by my previous opinion though. I'd love to see him tackle something of weight.

 

Paying 20-23 dollars for tickets in NYC, I've changed my tune about length of movies. I used to bitch about it all the time but now I'm like, if I'm spending that money, hell yeah, I'll sit here for 3 hours between the previews and the actual movie, especially if it's in a theater with the nice leather lounges. What, I need to get out of the theater faster so I can check my phone and Twitter? Give me the darkness, the comfort, the immersion in a new world, the 20 pounds of popcorn and 60 ounces of sugar soda, the...asshole one row in front of me snapchatting. Anyway. He's also made nine movies in 27 years. It's not like we're being asked to endure two movies a year from the guy. When one does come out, I don't mind spending 2.5 hours watching whatever he produces. I like disappearing into his world for two-plus hours or even three and honestly wouldn't want a 90-minute film by him (I realize there's probably a happy medium between an hour and a half and three hours).

As for Once Upon, I really liked this line in Leitch's review: "This is a movie I suspect you’ll someday want to put on like an old pair of slippers. It’s his warmest movie since Jackie Brown. It is imperfect and erratic and sometimes infuriating. But it is nearly impossible not to love." I did love it and am eager to return to its world and the scenery, the music, the characters and the occasional absurdity of the tale. It's my favorite of his since Pulp Fiction.

 

$20 for movie tickets?
Pass.
Hard pass!

 

Inglorious Basterds is overrated. The scene in the beginning with the people under the floor boards....too long by half. It's not rewatchable in the same way that many of his other films are. Looking fwd to seeing "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."

I'd rank them
1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Jackie Brown
4. Django
5...the rest

Didn't care much for the Kill Bill movies at all. Martial arts movies are not my bag. The Hateful Eight (with Bruce Dern learning about his son having to blow a black man before he's killed), Django and Inglorious Basterds are all revenge fantasies, which gets a bit tiresome.

I never saw Death Match.

 

... is the best movie of the last 20 years.

And the first scene introduced us to Christoph Waltz, whose Landa is most intense character of the last 20 years.

The first scene needed every breath of those 20 minutes. Drips with intensity.

 

Some people just looove that movie. That's your right, obviously, but I ain't gonna sit down and rewatch it anymore. The second time I watched it, that opening scene bored me to death.

I'm not saying there aren't great elements to the movie, but overall I felt it had some stark failings.