Search
Dean (6925 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Dec 21, 2019 (Updated Dec 22, 2019)
Luke warm pursuit
This looked OK from the trailer, didn't realise it was a remake of a Norwegian film. It looked like it would have a decent amount of action with some humour.
In reality there is a bit of action, nothing amazing, mainly some shoot outs. The humour though just didn't hit the mark for me. I'm not sure if there were trying for a Tarantino type of angle or more comic book but it just falls flat largely. Another role for Liam Neeson like his last several roles of everyday guy turned badass all of a sudden.
So just average overall, check out @6 Underground (2019) instead for tons of action and laughs.
In reality there is a bit of action, nothing amazing, mainly some shoot outs. The humour though just didn't hit the mark for me. I'm not sure if there were trying for a Tarantino type of angle or more comic book but it just falls flat largely. Another role for Liam Neeson like his last several roles of everyday guy turned badass all of a sudden.
So just average overall, check out @6 Underground (2019) instead for tons of action and laughs.
Jonah Hill recommended American Boy: A Profile of Steven Prince (1978) in Movies (curated)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) in Movies
Nov 12, 2020
Bloody Brilliant
A woman seeks revenge on the man that tried to kill her along with his gang of deadly assassins. Director Quentin Tarantino is known for producing masterpieces and this is definitely one of his finest.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Talk about a movie that sucks you in right from the very beginning. The opening scene is jarring and so amazing. I was anxious and excited to see what would happen next.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The cinematic appeal of Kill Bill Volume 1 is out of this world. The fight scenes are shot with flare and an intensity that ramps as each battle works towards the climax. I love how daring Tarantino is, even incorporating animated scenes to flesh out the story. One of my favorite moments is the main character’s final showdown against an assassin shot against the backdrop of a snowy landscape in Japan. It’s so incredibly beautiful, even as droplets of blood spatter against the snow.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Captivating from beginning to end. This is why we watch movies. There was never a dull moment as intensity lingers around every corner. The entertainment comes from a combination of conflict and sheer originality. As you sit there, you realize you are seeing something you have never seen before. I loved every minute of it.
Memorability: 10
Tarantino operates with the flare of a man who has been there and done that. I appreciate the fact that he’s not afraid to try new things. As a result, we get something new in every single scene. It’s brilliant how all the puzzle pieces come together. We think we are watching something simple and straightforward, but it ends up being amazingly intricate.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
You already know going in there’s going to be a sequel as the title indicates. But this movie wraps up quite nicely with a beautiful cliffhanger that gets you stoked for the sequel. No matter how many times I’ve watched this movie, the ending always pushes me into watching the sequel right after. Not many movies can say that.
Overall: 100
I’m not saying this lightly: Kill Bill Volume 1 is one of the greatest movies ever made. See it. I’ll end it there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Talk about a movie that sucks you in right from the very beginning. The opening scene is jarring and so amazing. I was anxious and excited to see what would happen next.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The cinematic appeal of Kill Bill Volume 1 is out of this world. The fight scenes are shot with flare and an intensity that ramps as each battle works towards the climax. I love how daring Tarantino is, even incorporating animated scenes to flesh out the story. One of my favorite moments is the main character’s final showdown against an assassin shot against the backdrop of a snowy landscape in Japan. It’s so incredibly beautiful, even as droplets of blood spatter against the snow.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Captivating from beginning to end. This is why we watch movies. There was never a dull moment as intensity lingers around every corner. The entertainment comes from a combination of conflict and sheer originality. As you sit there, you realize you are seeing something you have never seen before. I loved every minute of it.
Memorability: 10
Tarantino operates with the flare of a man who has been there and done that. I appreciate the fact that he’s not afraid to try new things. As a result, we get something new in every single scene. It’s brilliant how all the puzzle pieces come together. We think we are watching something simple and straightforward, but it ends up being amazingly intricate.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
You already know going in there’s going to be a sequel as the title indicates. But this movie wraps up quite nicely with a beautiful cliffhanger that gets you stoked for the sequel. No matter how many times I’ve watched this movie, the ending always pushes me into watching the sequel right after. Not many movies can say that.
Overall: 100
I’m not saying this lightly: Kill Bill Volume 1 is one of the greatest movies ever made. See it. I’ll end it there.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Jackie Brown (1997) in Movies
Aug 8, 2018
A little forgotten...
It's hard to say a Tarantino film is forgotten; however, not nearly as many people still talk about Jackie Brown as most of his other work which is a shame since it still holds up as another brilliant character study of a caper gone wrong and lots of double-crossing.
Robert De Niro is funny in the film mostly because he doesn't say or do much and is pretty subdued most of the time. The standouts are Pam Grier and Robert Forster with other nods to Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda and her feet and the always amazing Samuel L. Jackson.
If you haven't seen in a while or have never seen, please give it another look.
Robert De Niro is funny in the film mostly because he doesn't say or do much and is pretty subdued most of the time. The standouts are Pam Grier and Robert Forster with other nods to Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda and her feet and the always amazing Samuel L. Jackson.
If you haven't seen in a while or have never seen, please give it another look.
Trackie (153 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Jan 27, 2019
Lots of excitement (1 more)
A good action adult film
Polar
This is definitely not for the faint of heart. This is a brutal but fantastic film. You just can’t turn away.
If you're not a fan of gratuitous, over-the-top violence, lengthy sex scenes, and gory detail, stay away from this movie.
If such things don't bother you, or you see such things as essential in a good action movie, Polar is the film for you! Evocative of Tarantino, Charlie's Angel's, and any number of violent, Hitman-style films, Polar earns its place among the classics, with gusto.
An aging hitman on the verge of retirement, our protagonist finds himself hunted by his former employers, they get more than they bargain for.
If you're not a fan of gratuitous, over-the-top violence, lengthy sex scenes, and gory detail, stay away from this movie.
If such things don't bother you, or you see such things as essential in a good action movie, Polar is the film for you! Evocative of Tarantino, Charlie's Angel's, and any number of violent, Hitman-style films, Polar earns its place among the classics, with gusto.
An aging hitman on the verge of retirement, our protagonist finds himself hunted by his former employers, they get more than they bargain for.
Melanie Laurent recommended Pulp Fiction (1994) in Movies (curated)
Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2008)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
As Australian cinema broke through to international audiences in the 1970s through respected art...
Drive in Australian
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
It's the middle of World War II and France is overrun with Nazis. A group of Jewish-American soldiers is making a name for themselves as, "The Basterds," as they have the full intention of scalping each and every Nazi involved in the Third Reich. The Basterds soon become a real nuisance to The Fuhrer as their reputation strengthens and fear spreads like wildfire amongst the Nazis. Shosanna Dreyfus, a French-Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis, now owns a movie theater that catches the eye of Joseph Goebbels and his new film. The smaller, more private theater gets handpicked by Fredrick Zoller, a Nazi war hero and star of Goebbels film Nation's Pride, for the premiere of his new film. As the premiere becomes an intimate gathering of the Nazis, including the most important people of the Third Reich, The Basterds realize this may be their chance to end this war once and for all.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
AJaneClark (3962 KP) Dec 22, 2019