ITT: Dogshit movies by otherwise impeccable directors

ITT: Dogshit movies by otherwise impeccable directors

That's not intolerable cruelty

Alien 3

>pleb spotted

ladykillers is pretty funny though and tom hanks is really good in it

they made a movie based on La Mataviejitas?

I liked it.

you brought yaw bitch... to da waffe hut?

the real reason the ladykillers remake sucked is the original isn't that funny, it's pretty faithful to the source
>british "film"

who are you quoting, newfriend?

I liked this one, but also I didn't know it was a remake or made by the Coens

It's not dogshit. Maybe dogshit by Coen standards, but it's still a 'fine' movie.
Tom Hanks also deserved an Oscar for that performance - I was really impressed by it.

...

...

>13:41:14
>13:41:42
>Tarantino Mind

Also PF is good but overrated. JB is fucking dog shit and overrated.

...

i dont get the hype
>look guys, I made a movie with no overarching story or conflict

that's literally pulp fiction though

thats what i'm saying. ya dingus.

Well what else would you expect from a movie called Pulp Fiction but pulp fiction? The three stories presented are quintessential short stories, all perfectly encapsulating the je ne sais quoi of what makes pulp fiction so tantalizing.

Pulp Fiction changed filmmaking for a generation at least.

The homages, cinematography, casting, the dialogue, and every single character except grows in some meaningful way (except Vega but that's intentional). A story doesn't have to have a moral to be good.

Only thing I didn't care for was that normies say it's his best when his best is clearly The Hateful Eight.

JB is borderline unwatchable.

i dont know what pulp fiction means. Does that make the movie any better just because it's based on something that already exists

>when his best is clearly The Hateful Eight
Ah! A man of culture at last.

>A story doesn't have to have a moral to be good.
no one said that.
>when his best is clearly The Hateful Eight
absolutely not. Maybe from the standpoint of camera work and the like, but it was a self indulgent fanservice-y mess

I enjoyed it. The Coens haven't made a bad movie yet.

WELL AINT LOVE GRAND! YALL WANT TO LIE ON THE GROUND N MAKE SNOW ANGILS TOGETHER?

fucking kill yourself retard

>absolutely not. Maybe from the standpoint of camera work and the like, but it was a self indulgent fanservice-y mess

That's Django Unchained. TH8 is carried entirely by the strength of its ensemble. 95 percent of the film takes place in the same room ffs.

You are all now reminded that you ACTUALLY have conversations with people like this.

>he didn't like Intolerable Cruelty
Best romcom ever made

if you didn't like it, you didn't like it, but you should try to understand why it IS liked before writing it and those who enjoyed it off as brainlets, retards, etc. I mean, I'm not saying everything is good and shouldn't be judged, or anything to that effect, but speaking specifically about Pulp Fiction here, the stories capture the palpable tension and gritty, easily digestible tales of interest that appeal to a more primal part of the brain. There's bad pulp fiction, to be sure, but not in this movie.

>95 percent of the film takes place in the same room ffs.
And?

>impeccable

who cares if it was all in one room or not. The movie was fine right up until the end. it was unfolding really nicely and then he went and tarrantinoed the ending with excessive violence and blood for no reason. It didn't fit with the rest of the movie. It made sense for kill bill, even django, but H8 couldve been his best if he just stayed his hand for a moment and let the movie exist outside of his branding as "that guy that uses a lot of blood and text"

And you're a fucking moron which should have been clearly inferred.

You can not even pretend to validate your own talking point and I halfway hope you try just to drive home how much of a colossal fucking philistine you are.

I would ask your opinion of what QT's best is but I'm convinced your answer will not reveal anything new about....your kind.

>a QT movie is violent oh no!

You are all now reminded that you ACTUALLY have conversations with people like this.

you're missing the point.

Oh, you just post ironic memester. Thx for wasting time

Everything you do, including breathing, is a waste of time. Thanks for proving my point that you have no argument and are too mentally deficient to even attempt one.

Not him but you begged the question when you said the entire movie takes place in one room as if it were inherently some kind of flaw. You're gonna need to either explain your reasoning there or shut the fuck up and stop posting like you're arguing on your WoW guild's forums

man this post is so bad. JB is 1 or 2, and nothing Tarantino made after JB is better than 5/10.

I have to assume you also like plebshit like Villenueve, Nolan, PTA, etc.

you're not even talking to the same guy, friendo. Just one other guy that disagrees with you. Have fun next time you need to enter the real world and be reasonable.

So far, your argument is
>H8 is the best because
>it has good actors and they work well together (ensemble)
>it took place in the same room
>its not Django unchained

go back to your home on reddit with this shit

>you're not even talking to the same guy, friendo.

calling card of an argument loss

It's a pretty good sign of how good the Coens are when even their worst movies are only bad by their standards. The Ladykillers is alright.

>You, sir, are a Buddhist. Is there not a "middle" way?
>Mm. Must float like a leaf on the river of life... and kill old lady.

Is there a more pretentious phrase on the planet than "je ne sais quoi"? It literally means "indescribable quality" but brainlets like to make people do mental gymnastics through two languages so they can sound smart. There's no reason to ever use the phrase.

I'm literally trying to help you argue since you won't stop meme-ing. Why is H8 his best movie and not PF, RD, JB, IB or django?

This.
Its crappy if you think its a coen movie but as a dark comedy every character is fucking hilarious. I also love the
>Diverse multi ethnic race heist film genre

No, you are. It was always a Tarantino movie, if you were expecting Twelve Angry Men that's your fault. Excessive gore and violence is exactly what he likes, and if anything it's amazing that he took so long to get to it. It's not like it invalidated the fantastic acting leading up to it.

How would you have ended the movie, out of curiosity?

>It's not like it invalidated the fantastic acting leading up to it.
it does, that's my point. Twelve Angry Men is objectively better structured than H8. QT really nailed the entire movie but couldn't stop himself from making the same type of movie for the tenth time. That's why it's a self indulgent mess.

None of his other movies have out of place violence. Pulp Fiction handled it well. It was depraved by the nature of the story it told, but no one was loaded up with 100 squibbs during a shootout. Django was style similarly to Kill Bill, as an action adventure movie about revenge and catharsis. Inglorious was much the same. H8 had the opportunity to be a tense "Who dun it" twelve angry men style drama with 8 characters everyone kinda dislikes (which was the point in making it, i think). QT didn't have the courage to tell the same story without the excessive violence. It's juvenile. He's basically looking right at the audience and saying "You want to bloody up these unlikable characters? are you ready? its a tarantino movie! its gonna happen! Dont get too immersed!". It made the movie worse than it couldve been.
As far as ending it goes, there's no reason all the same shit couldn't have happened just without the excessive violence and stabbing and barfing in people's faces. Movies have long had violent endings that didn't destroy your suspense of disbelief. And honestly, you asking that question makes me think you don't understand how this works. Identifying a flaw isn't invalidated just because I can't fix it to your standard.

I really likd that movie.

>tfw you bring your bitch to the waffle house

>Identifying a flaw

Yeah, whatever, all you "critics" hide behind this as though criticism is inherently protected from being criticized itself. You're in the minority here, most everyone loved it, and pretty much everyone knew what to expect. In the future, use phrases like, "it wasn't what I expected" and "I felt it could have ended better", not words like "flaw" and "self-indulgent" as though you have some authority.

>self indulgent
>fanservice-y mess
Dishonest critique is rife in the state of Sup Forums.

>I have to assume you also like plebshit like Villenueve, Nolan, PTA, etc.

I've only seen Nolan's batmans and the prestige. Couldn't tell you who the others even are. I liked the Prestige.

I don't talk to people that use reddit logic.

If you need to be explained why a movie is good then why bother? You clearly aren't capable of seeing the value on your own.

That's like having to explain why a joke is funny, if you need it explained in the first place it's clearly beyond your comprehension.

I've never seen someone say absolutely nothing using so many words.

>You're in the minority here
not an argument. But if it makes you feel better about your own opinions, kudos. I don't write my opinions to be validated.
>and pretty much everyone knew what to expect.
this doesn't really matter, but there's no way you can prove that.

it WASN'T what i expected, and that's the flaw: The entire movie set itself up as a great movie and then changed gears in a way that does nothing but hinder the movie itself. Movies can exist outside of their director's branding. And it's not like QT is incapable of letting a story sit there, he did it all the time before inglorious basterds came along. Now he's stuck in this weird rut where all of his movies have to have a climactic bloody shootout. This is fine, again, when the movie calls for it. Just because QT does it in movies where it makes sense for it, doesn't mean that it's okay for him to do it whenever he wants. It makes his movie less cohesive as a whole.

>If you need to be explained why a movie is good then why bother?
then why bother posting if you can't explain it? you just want to circle jerk with nods of agreement? I'd argue that if you can't explain why something is good, either it isn't and you just enjoyed it (which is separate from quality) or you need to find someone who can put it into words for you. There's no shortage of that.

>If you need to be explained why a movie is good then why bother?
So you're lazy and/or inarticulate

nothing wrong with being inarticulate.

...

...

...

>JB is borderline unwatchable.

I thought it was one of his better films imo