MovieChat Forums > filmgeek99
filmgeek99 (671)
Posts
did he ever request to not lose a fight in any of his films?
lost her house in the LA fires
glad to see people seem to have finally had enough of this prick
flawless cinematography
McTiernan was the wrong choice for director here
iconic actors you aren't a big fan of?
Praetorian Jack was a better Mad Max than Tom Hardy was
most punchable face ever?
movies that show butt sex?
View all posts >
Replies
Unfortunately, with the discovery of the "drug letters" that came out a few years back, this seems to be the case.
I actually like that one, though.
Agreed, just saw this last night and fucking hated it. Thought the story was laughably absurd and melodramatic, with unconvincing character behavior and psychology. Have no idea why this film nor the play it was based on is so revered to this day.
I'm getting a little tired of the biopics/historical dramas Scorsese's been exclusively focusing since 2011. In the old days, he would jump back and forth between quiet, character-focused dramas (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver), crime films (Goodfellas, Casino) dark comedies (The King of Comedy, After Hours), thrillers (Cape Fear, Shutter Island), and even a musical once (New York, New York). Nowadays, however, it seems like all he makes are just safe, predictable, albeit well-made and engaging biopics about morally dubious historical figures (The Wolf of Wall Street, The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon).
He's followed the same route Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg have taken as they've gotten older, taking fewer risks and chances by focusing their efforts solely on the surefire bet formula that is the biopic, all while somewhat losing the edge and impact their older films had.
No, he did not. Two dudes making some crass, unPC jokes in a locker room together is in no way a confession of sexual assault. You're acting retarded.
Same. I normally agree with the Drinker on most things, but I have no idea what he was smoking when he decided to give this piece of shit a recommendation. This show rapes the mythology of the Terminator franchise far worse than any of the films made after T2 by introducing a new AI to the mix, but without actually changing the stakes in the story so all it does is just unnecessarily complicate the simple but intriguing premise of the first film.
On top of that, it's also fucking boring as each episode moves at a snail's pace with only one or two plot points being covered at a time. It's dragged out by endless scenes of long-winded, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual debates between a character named Malcolm and the new aforementioned AI, Kokoro. What could've been resolved in a single episode gets dragged out unnecessarily to five, and what's worse is that not a single character in this show is even remotely interesting or likable.
This honestly didn't even need to be a Terminator show as aside from Skynet and the one T-800 character it features, there is next to nothing here that connects it to the Cameron films. I'm not saying every character or situation from the first two films needs to get a reference here, but something as simple as just someone saying "This reminds me of an unresolved case in LA of a giant Austrian man who shot up a club and a police station back in '84.", would've helped at least establish where this takes place in the continuity. As is, though, I have no idea whether this is a reboot or a sequel.
So yeah, don't waste your time on this piece of shit series, folks. It sucks.
But doesn't he have a clause in his contract that stipulates that he can't lose a fight in any of his films? How is that gonna work for a sports drama like this?
Bridget Jones's Diarrhea
Something tells me you didn't read what I wrote. As I just said, I DON'T think Tarantino has an IQ of 160, but that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent or insanely gifted. What I meant is that IQ doesn't take the full spectrum of what human beings can mentally accomplish into account. Especially when one is discussing something as subjective and personal as the art of filmmaking, of which there is no actual objective measure in assessing quality of (a lot of critics think there is, but there really isn't).
As far as MY personal, subjective opinion is concerned, however, Tarantino is a genius. His films are incredibly entertaining, well-made, creative, and far more multi-layered than what most folks give them credit for (check out Rob Ager's analysis of Pulp Fiction if you're not convinced). If having a verified IQ score was the only way a person can be deemed as intelligent, then we may as well just not the use word "smart" on anyone that doesn't have their IQ stamped on their head.
Contrary to popular belief, Albert Einstein never actually took an IQ test, and he is widely considered one of the smartest people ever lived. Is he not intelligent either just because he doesn't a verifiably high IQ?
Celebrity IQs are one of the most commonly believed hoaxes on the Web. As far as I know, no high IQ organization (Mensa, Triple Nine, Mega etc) has ever released any of their test scores publicly and psychologists are likely prohibited by law from doing so. There's a few that's been verified over the years (James Woods, Kate Beckinsale) but most of the time, they are just bogus rumors propped up by magazines and tabloids for clickbait.
Unless if there is definitive proof somewhere, as far as we know, most celebrities have never even taken an IQ test. Tarantino is a genius in my book, but in the traditional IQ sense? I'm not so sure about that. Intelligence is an incredibly rich, multi-faceted concept that transcends beyond something you can measure in numbers. To quote RedLetterMedia, "I would say he is a genius. Maybe not an engineering genius, maybe not a mathematical genius, but a FILMMAKING genius."
View all replies >