Keyofx Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Who's with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftrunner Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Die hard 4 doesnt exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Who's with me? I'm with you! Nothing touches Die Hard 1. Also.. Alan Rickman>Bruce Willis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Samuel L Jackson > Alan Rickman > Bruce Willis Edited July 14, 2009 by Tyler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Just came to know about the GL news. RR is a very good choice. crosses fingers for it. DC apart nolan's crew saving batman has done everything to f**k up their superhero franchise. Pretty ironic as a movie studio (WB) owns Dc, but then again maybe that is the whole problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) In other news, saw hangover. Awesome stuff. best movie of 09 yet. Edited July 14, 2009 by Nemo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante77 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 someone answer me please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulovski Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_c...9&Itemid=99 details about GL script - seems to be initial storyline which is good. but when was Clark Kent and Guy Gardner in the running for the ring? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L33TWiZaRd Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 CK ie Super Man ie Kal El?? Yeah he was in the running for the ring. I think i saw that story line in a cartoon long time back. Can't really remember :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shekdown Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Who's with me? Im in agreement with that. 2 was really poor, for my liking. Samuel L Jackson is the king of them all. Finally got down to watching Pulp Fiction after putting it off for ages. Pulp Ficton : 6.5/10 Well, I have long waited to watch this movie and kept postponing a watch and I finally watched it today. I had very high expectations after a lot of peoples reactions. It didnt live up to my expectations, however I understand that as I might have been expecting something out of the world. The first thing that struck me at the end of the movie was the resemblence to Guy Ritchie movies and the character depth in the movie. Out of the world, nearly every character was portrayed powerfully well. Brilliant stuff. Samuel L Jackson, man does this guy steal the show or what? Jules: You read the Bible? Brett : Yeah Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftrunner Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Pulp Ficton : 6.5/10 No, no way. Sorry, just no. I am not QT fanboy, but thats an excellent film. In every sense of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shekdown Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) No, no way. Sorry, just no. I am not QT fanboy, but thats an excellent film. In every sense of the word. Which part of my review did I say it wasnt? It was a brilliant film. 6.5 - 7.0 would just about right for me. In the end, when everything is linked and adds up, your still left with nothing. Im not going to be thinking "Wow, what a plot". Ill be thinking, great acting, good plot and bloody amazing direction. Travolta's character was incredibly wafer thin, Marcellus Wallace didnt have any depth in his character, Uma Thurman's character was superb but unbelievably pointless. Surprisingly, it was the people who had very little time on screen that stole the movie for me. Bruce Willis' girl friend, the restaurant robbers, Winston Wolf. Im a huge fan of Tarantino, Scorcese and Ritchie. And Ritchie and Tarantino have a very similar style to their movies. Very good movies, amazing direction, usually good casting and a good-decent plot. However, nothing thats going make you go 'Wow, what a finish'. Snatch probably still remains my favourite Ritchie movie, largely because of the plot. I guess Im a plot guy. And I love well embellished characters. A plot needs strength, a character needs depth. When I watch Kollywood and Bollywood movies, Im left with a bitter taste in my mouth, albeit minimum entertainment, after the movie with the lack of both factors Ive mentioned above. Edited July 14, 2009 by shekdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftrunner Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I think we disagree on what excellent is. To me "brilliant" or "excellent" is an 8 or a 9 out of ten. A 6 or a 7 out of 10 is a merely decent, watchable film e.g. I am Legend. Everything in QT's career since PF has been a downward slide. The two Kill bill films were an exception but aside from that I doubt he will do anything as good as Reservoir dogs or PF again. Rest of that is fair enough I guess. Different people different tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmage Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Pulp Ficton : 6.5/10[/b] Off with his head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Off with his head... aye aye cap'n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 details about GL script - seems to be initial storyline which is good. but when was Clark Kent and Guy Gardner in the running for the ring? :confused: OMG.. they need to have GUY in there somewhere, and bring bale (batman) to do this- one of the best moments in all comicdom As for people being in contention for the ring, I would kill for this to happen- thats an actual comic cover and i want it, desperately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shekdown Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I think we disagree on what excellent is. To me "brilliant" or "excellent" is an 8 or a 9 out of ten. A 6 or a 7 out of 10 is a merely decent, watchable film e.g. I am Legend. Everything in QT's career since PF has been a downward slide. The two Kill bill films were an exception but aside from that I doubt he will do anything as good as Reservoir dogs or PF again. Rest of that is fair enough I guess. Different people different tastes. I must have said it before, though, since I dont post as much here as I do in my regular joint. Im rather stringent in my rating. So if Im rating something 8.0 - 9.0, its something Id love to watch again, rather than 'Not minding watching it again'. I dont think Id watch Pulp Fiction again, unless in a gang or something, for a good 5-6 years. Maybe you havent watched the right movies. Jackie Brown and Sin City were both bloody brilliant. Grindhouse was a chilling watch, as for Death Proof, I havent watched it, but I have read good reviews. Off with his head... Ofcourse, you could try to defend your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmage Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Ofcourse, you could try to defend your point. Its just easier this way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftrunner Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^^ I thought Jackie brown was dire. It did the worst crime any film can ever commit : It bored me. And AFAIK QT barely touched Sin city. All he directed was two small segments, so if anyone should get the credit for that it should be Rodriguez. Death proof was just QT masturbating on a script. I have never, ever seen a film thats so far up its own a*s. And if you really love a core plot/central theme then I am willing to bet money you will actually hate Death proof. True love (which he wrote) was another horrible example of a writer thats too much in love with himself. PF and RD was as close as he came to making truly great cinema. Kill bill was the runner up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arun360 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Which part of my review did I say it wasnt? It was a brilliant film. 6.5 - 7.0 would just about right for me. In the end, when everything is linked and adds up, your still left with nothing. Im not going to be thinking "Wow, what a plot". Ill be thinking, great acting, good plot and bloody amazing direction. Travolta's character was incredibly wafer thin, Marcellus Wallace didnt have any depth in his character, Uma Thurman's character was superb but unbelievably pointless. Surprisingly, it was the people who had very little time on screen that stole the movie for me. Bruce Willis' girl friend, the restaurant robbers, Winston Wolf. Im a huge fan of Tarantino, Scorcese and Ritchie. And Ritchie and Tarantino have a very similar style to their movies. Very good movies, amazing direction, usually good casting and a good-decent plot. However, nothing thats going make you go 'Wow, what a finish'. Snatch probably still remains my favourite Ritchie movie, largely because of the plot. I guess Im a plot guy. And I love well embellished characters. A plot needs strength, a character needs depth. When I watch Kollywood and Bollywood movies, Im left with a bitter taste in my mouth, albeit minimum entertainment, after the movie with the lack of both factors Ive mentioned above. Not just QT, for every movie, IMNSHO Screenplay > Plot Movies, like games, do not always have to be plot driven. You can make engaging cinema without a great plot much like how you can have interesting gameplay with little or no story to carry it along. You can write superhero comics too. Just make sure AwesomeMan always lives in the end to fight another day, another villain. Speaking of games - Is there a semblance of a plot in Elite Beat Agents? Or PacMan? Or Tetris? or even God of War? That's a topic for another discussion. All I'm saying is, you can write a good script out of a formulaic plot, convert it into a brilliant screenplay and produce good cinema. Edited July 14, 2009 by arun360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts