Last movie you saw? v2.0

[Sacul]

The Godfather

Somehow I had never watched this movie. To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It was fine, kinda boring through much of it to be honest.

It's a very well-made movie. . . that I don't connect to at all.  I don't want any of these mafia goons to succeed, so I have no emotional investment in their machinations.  I've seen it a few times, but really have no interest in seeing it again.

All of this, and that goes for most crime and mafia related films and series for me. Prob why I won't watch The Sopranos, hell I didn't even manage to finish Breaking Bad

[hefdaddy42]

The Godfather

Somehow I had never watched this movie. To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It was fine, kinda boring through much of it to be honest.

My favorite movie of all time, not even close.

Same.

Say hello to my little friend!!

God dammit

[pg1067]

The Godfather

Somehow I had never watched this movie. To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It was fine, kinda boring through much of it to be honest.

My wife and I watched The Godfather sometime in the mid-'90s.  Neither of us had seen it before, and I distinctly recall looking for a movie to rent and agreeing that it was a movie we ought to see.  Interestingly, this subject came up about five years ago, and she denies ever having seen it.  Not having the ability to drop the red challenge flag, I simply said, "OK."  Anyway, I remember very little about the movie, and I've not gone back and watched it again, which tells me that I enjoyed Mickey Blue Eyes a lot more.

[El Barto]

Hadn't thought about it before, but the fact that it's a movie that covers decades, and seldom spends much time on concise story lines might also be a factor in why people think it's slow and boring. We're basically seeing one or two days out of months or years at a time, and it's going to be rare when we see consecutive scenes without days or weeks between them.

[Orbert]

I'm not so sure about that.  The movie brings us in at a point where Don Vito's power is at its peak, his legend well established.  We get enough to understand the situation, then move quickly to the attempt on his life.  All of that takes place in a relatively short amount of time.  Michael's move and exile to Sicily takes place not long after.  The exile itself covers some time, and the next time Michael and Kay speak, he mentions that he's been back about a year.  So yeah, some time was skipped, but not decades.  There's a little downtime while Don Michael works on bring the family back to its former glory, consulting with Don Vito, but we don't really know how much time elapses there.  Then Michael makes his big power move, he's the king, and the movie ends.  For how much story is covered, it actually moves pretty quickly.

Part II definitely covers a lot of time, serving somehow as both a prequel and a sequel to the original story.  I loved the prequel sections, but the sequel sections bored me, and were marred by the fact that Frankie Pentangeli was obviously supposed to be Peter Clemenza and we were somehow supposed to accept that he was a capo the whole time and we just never saw him.  When I watch Part II, I mentally overlay Clemenza onto Pentangeli and go from there.

[El Barto]

I'm not so sure about that.  The movie brings us in at a point where Don Vito's power is at its peak, his legend well established.  We get enough to understand the situation, then move quickly to the attempt on his life.  All of that takes place in a relatively short amount of time.  Michael's move and exile to Sicily takes place not long after.  The exile itself covers some time, and the next time Michael and Kay speak, he mentions that he's been back about a year.  So yeah, some time was skipped, but not decades.  There's a little downtime while Don Michael works on bring the family back to its former glory, consulting with Don Vito, but we don't really know how much time elapses there.  Then Michael makes his big power move, he's the king, and the movie ends.  For how much story is covered, it actually moves pretty quickly.

Part II definitely covers a lot of time, serving somehow as both a prequel and a sequel to the original story.  I loved the prequel sections, but the sequel sections bored me, and were marred by the fact that Frankie Pentangeli was obviously supposed to be Peter Clemenza and we were somehow supposed to accept that he was a capo the whole time and we just never saw him.  When I watch Part II, I mentally overlay Clemenza onto Pentangeli and go from there.

Fair enough. It's kind of hard to keep it broken up between the three eras in the two films. Years not decades.

However, I still think that the scenes are quite often weeks or months apart, covering a real stretch of time. The movie opens in the Summer (everybody sweating something awful in Long Beach, NY), and in very short order Michael's shopping for Christmas gifts. Luca had been undercover for at least a couple of weeks before getting garrotted. It was implied that it was weeks before Vito came home from the hospital, and we don't know how much time it took for Sollozo to finalize his deal with Barzini before having him shot. The war had dragged on and Barzini had to "outfight" Sonny. I'm not certain, but it seems to me that Michael spent at least a year in Sicily. He left while Vito was still in the hospital, was still there the war ended after Sonny got whacked. That's just the first act and we've covered 2 or 3 years. According to the novel it was actually 5.

Also, the script has the wedding taking place in Summer of '45, and the scene in the office sometime in '55, so ten years according to FFC.

In any case, even if it does move briskly for people interested in the goings on, by typical movie standards it moves in slow motion relative to the actual timeline. I think that might be part of why people (not me, I dig it) always say it's too slow.


As for the Clemenza/Pentangeli part, I never let it bother me. I never read the novels, so I wouldn't know it was supposed to be the same guy. In truth there were likely plenty of capos we don't know about. Plus, I liked the actor playing Frankie more than the guy that was Clemenza. I found him more interesting.

[Orbert]

I only ever read the original novel, which was the source for the first movie and the prequel parts of Part II.  The sequel stuff was all made up for the movie.  But Don Vito only had two capos, Tessio and Clemenza.  If they'd somehow established in the first movie that these were only two of many, and we just never saw the others, then that probably would have been okay.  But even if you never read the book, nothing in the first movie implies anything different.

Tessio betrayed Michael at the end of the first movie, and I guess the idea was that Clemenza was going to betray Michael in the second one (before changing his mind).  That could have been interesting and added to the whole idea that Michael had become a monster that no one wanted anything to do with anymore.

I can see how Frankie was the more interesting character, and trying to put myself in the place of someone who'd never read the book, I can see how his character could actually work.  But even before the Internet and reading about the behind-the-scenes stuff, it seemed obvious to me that Frankie was supposed to be Clemenza, and when I found out that I was right all along, it bugged me and prevented me from enjoying the character as he is.  So thank you for that.  It's a fresh take (for me, anyway).

It was similar with Tom Hagen's absence from Part III (which I seem to like more than most).  It weakened the story, and simply having Tom around and being one more character that we knew from the first two films would have helped.  But they didn't want to cough up the money for Duvall, and I think that was a mistake.  And as FFC puts it, since the whole point of making that third movie was for the money (he freely admits that), putting up a little more up front to get a better return made more sense.  Oh well, didn't happen.

[lordxizor]

The Godfather

Somehow I had never watched this movie. To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It was fine, kinda boring through much of it to be honest.

Lot of people feel that way. I'm somewhat in between. I think it's a great movie and it fascinates me, but it's not going to crack my top 10. I think the appeal is in how well it creates their world and brings you inside of it. If that's a place you do not want to be then you probably won't dig it. I'd typically prefer to watch Goodfellas, but FFC definitely does a better job of recreating the universe it all exists in.

I'll point out that all of the people who find Godfather to be overrated will say that Godfather 2 is the better film. The world is already established so it's able to move along at a slightly quicker pace. That said, it's also more complicated and takes a bit more effort to really understand. I'll just say that if you're going to watch one your should watch both.

I'm sitting in a hotel in Cleveland after sitting in training all day, so I was thinking I'd watch part 2 tonight.

On part 1: I think if they had cut out 10 minutes of basically nothing happening on screen and made the time jumps more obvious, it would have been a much better movie.

[The Realm]

I think The Godfather is one of the greatest movies ever made. I absolutely love it and after I finish watching it, I feel like putting it straight back on and starting again. Movie making at its finest. I have seen it at least 50 times.

[Cool Chris]

My greatest cinematic regret is my first viewing of The Godfather and Godfather 2 being an edited chronological cut. Memory is hazy, but I rented a laserdisc(!) from the university library, and I think it was a made-for-TV edit that featured the two movies chronologically, with some added scenes. Even Coppola has said it doesn't play as well as it does two separate movies.

I could talk about the Godfather films as much as I could about any film, so I will spare all of you. I love them, and even enjoy the 3rd. That is the most unfairly maligned film in history. I never thought of them as "mafia" movies. It's a story about a family, who happen to be gangsters.

I neve rhad any issue with Pentangeli. I quite like the character, I just figured Clemenza died, so next man up. I remember reading the actor playing Clemenza wanted more say in his dialogue, to which Coppola and Puzo replied "Thanks, we got this" and thus Clemenza died and we have a new Capo.

[Orbert]

My first exposure to The Godfather was the chronological cut of the original and Part II that they did for TV back when I was in school.  It was broadcast as a miniseries on three or four consecutive nights, back when you could do such things.  Obviously some of the more violent scenes were edited, but there was a lot of added footage as well, scenes not in the theatrical cuts of either film.  Because it was all I knew, I thought it was great.  In general, I prefer a story to be told chronologically (unless the whole point of the film is for it to be non-linear, a la Pulp Fiction).  Many years later, I would watch the theatrical cuts, and the way Part II kept cutting back and forth between Young Vito and "modern day" Michael seemed kinda dumb to me.  I've seen all three films so many times now (I have the Blu-ray set) that I'm okay with it, but I think part of me will always prefer the version I saw first.

[Stadler]

I only ever read the original novel, which was the source for the first movie and the prequel parts of Part II.  The sequel stuff was all made up for the movie.  But Don Vito only had two capos, Tessio and Clemenza.  If they'd somehow established in the first movie that these were only two of many, and we just never saw the others, then that probably would have been okay.  But even if you never read the book, nothing in the first movie implies anything different.

Tessio betrayed Michael at the end of the first movie, and I guess the idea was that Clemenza was going to betray Michael in the second one (before changing his mind).  That could have been interesting and added to the whole idea that Michael had become a monster that no one wanted anything to do with anymore.

I can see how Frankie was the more interesting character, and trying to put myself in the place of someone who'd never read the book, I can see how his character could actually work.  But even before the Internet and reading about the behind-the-scenes stuff, it seemed obvious to me that Frankie was supposed to be Clemenza, and when I found out that I was right all along, it bugged me and prevented me from enjoying the character as he is.  So thank you for that.  It's a fresh take (for me, anyway).

It was similar with Tom Hagen's absence from Part III (which I seem to like more than most).  It weakened the story, and simply having Tom around and being one more character that we knew from the first two films would have helped.  But they didn't want to cough up the money for Duvall, and I think that was a mistake.  And as FFC puts it, since the whole point of making that third movie was for the money (he freely admits that), putting up a little more up front to get a better return made more sense.  Oh well, didn't happen.

Wouldn't Frankie be a more logical "replacement" to Tessio? 


I don't know; I never looked at The Godfather (or The Sopranos, now that we mention it) as "gangster movies".   They were, to me, something more than that.   I DO think of "Goodfellas" (and "Casino") as "gangster movies".  I don't know that I can articulate why the difference, but some of it has to do with the way the violence dove-tailed with the domestic in the former two.  The relationship between Michael and Kay.  The way Vito seemed to want to pretend the violence of his life would't follow to his son (the irony being that Michael served with distinction during wartime in the Marines).  The way Michael seemed to want to pretend the violence of his "American" life wouldn't follow him to Italy.  I'm much better versed in The Godfather (and The Sopranos) than I am in Goodfellas, but there IS a difference to my eyes.

[El Barto]

The Corleone family probably had 15-20 capos at that time. They were based on both the biggest and the smallest of the families (Gennovese and Bonanno), and that's probably what you could expect from either. Tessio, Clemeza, and Pentangeli (and later Joey Zasa) were just the three that figured into the various plot lines.

[Orbert]

The Corleone family probably had 15-20 capos at that time. They were based on both the biggest and the smallest of the families (Gennovese and Bonanno), and that's probably what you could expect from either. Tessio, Clemeza, and Pentangeli (and later Joey Zasa) were just the three that figured into the various plot lines.

I've read the book at least four or five times, and of course watched the movie dozens of times, and I'm either completely misremembering or just plain misinterpreted things, but I thought it was made pretty clear that Don Vito had exactly two caporegimes, Sal Tessio and Peter Clemenza.  Clemenza worked more closely with the Don, while Tessio's operations were kept more remote.  Sure, there were lots of "soldiers" (Paulie was one we got to know a little), and a whole power structure, but I have trouble with the idea that there were another dozen or more captains of equal status to Clemenza and Tessio and we just never saw or heard anything about them.

Time to re-read the book, I guess.  It's been a few years, so I'm about due anyway.

Wouldn't Frankie be a more logical "replacement" to Tessio? 

I'm answering this one second (though it was posted first) because it only makes sense based on my reply to Bart.


Tessio's departure was during the time Don Vito was transitioning his power and authority to Don Michael.  Vito told Michael that whoever sets up the meeting with Barzini is the traitor.  There's a brief conversation between Tom and (I can't remember who) where Tom says that it's actually the smart move, and Tessio was always the smarter one.  This is in response to the suggestion that it might have been Clemenza.  The fact that those are the only two possibilities mentioned seems to again say to me that there's only the two of them.

To answer the question, though, I had never considered the idea of Tessio's replacement.  Michael was restructuring the family business, top to bottom I'm sure, as that would be his way, and I guess I assumed that the position was no longer necessary.  I always assumed that the Pentangeli character was created when they couldn't get Richard Castellano back to play Clemenza in Part II.  To me the idea was that Tessio had turned at the end of the first movie, and with Clemenza turning on Michael, it was the end of Don Vito's original structure, which in a way was something Don Michael wanted anyway, as he had always meant to convert the family business to legitimate business on every level.

[El Barto]

The Corleone family probably had 15-20 capos at that time. They were based on both the biggest and the smallest of the families (Gennovese and Bonanno), and that's probably what you could expect from either. Tessio, Clemeza, and Pentangeli (and later Joey Zasa) were just the three that figured into the various plot lines.

I've read the book at least four or five times, and of course watched the movie dozens of times, and I'm either completely misremembering or just plain misinterpreted things, but I thought it was made pretty clear that Don Vito had exactly two caporegimes, Sal Tessio and Peter Clemenza.  Clemenza worked more closely with the Don, while Tessio's operations were kept more remote.  Sure, there were lots of "soldiers" (Paulie was one we got to know a little), and a whole power structure, but I have trouble with the idea that there were another dozen or more captains of equal status to Clemenza and Tessio and we just never saw or heard anything about them.

Time to re-read the book, I guess.  It's been a few years, so I'm about due anyway.

I think that would be more in line with their roles as underbosses. At various points the wo of them, along with Sonny, Fredo, and at one point Al Nerie. Other established caporgimes would be Willie Cicci and Rocco, along with Al Nerie at some point. Or, perhaps Vito just created new positions for them given their longtime service to the family.

Since we're discussing a movie here it's certainly possible that the Corleone family was structured differently, or that Puzo/FFC took some liberties. In the real world, though, a capo runs a crew, and the Corleones aren't one of the biggest of the five families with only 2 crews. Back to fiction, consider that the DiMeo crime family was relatively small, and even they had a ton of capos (including Richie Appriel, Ralphy, Pauly, later Christopher, and in S1 Tony himself).

[lordxizor]

Watched part 2 last night. I think I liked it a little better than part 1, but I had the same criticisms really. Overall didn't really resonate with me, but I can see why some people might like it better than I did.

[hefdaddy42]

I can see how Frankie was the more interesting character, and trying to put myself in the place of someone who'd never read the book, I can see how his character could actually work.  But even before the Internet and reading about the behind-the-scenes stuff, it seemed obvious to me that Frankie was supposed to be Clemenza, and when I found out that I was right all along, it bugged me and prevented me from enjoying the character as he is.  So thank you for that.  It's a fresh take (for me, anyway).

I mean, the film doesn't just use Frankie instead of Clemenza without explanation.  The film mentions that Clemenza has died of a heart attack.  Frankie literally took his place.

[Orbert]

I can see how Frankie was the more interesting character, and trying to put myself in the place of someone who'd never read the book, I can see how his character could actually work.  But even before the Internet and reading about the behind-the-scenes stuff, it seemed obvious to me that Frankie was supposed to be Clemenza, and when I found out that I was right all along, it bugged me and prevented me from enjoying the character as he is.  So thank you for that.  It's a fresh take (for me, anyway).

I mean, the film doesn't just use Frankie instead of Clemenza without explanation.  The film mentions that Clemenza has died of a heart attack.  Frankie literally took his place.

True.  The line was added when they couldn't get Castellano back for Part II and had to invent the Pentangeli character.

The Corleone family probably had 15-20 capos at that time. They were based on both the biggest and the smallest of the families (Gennovese and Bonanno), and that's probably what you could expect from either. Tessio, Clemeza, and Pentangeli (and later Joey Zasa) were just the three that figured into the various plot lines.

I've read the book at least four or five times, and of course watched the movie dozens of times, and I'm either completely misremembering or just plain misinterpreted things, but I thought it was made pretty clear that Don Vito had exactly two caporegimes, Sal Tessio and Peter Clemenza.  Clemenza worked more closely with the Don, while Tessio's operations were kept more remote.  Sure, there were lots of "soldiers" (Paulie was one we got to know a little), and a whole power structure, but I have trouble with the idea that there were another dozen or more captains of equal status to Clemenza and Tessio and we just never saw or heard anything about them.

Time to re-read the book, I guess.  It's been a few years, so I'm about due anyway.

I think that would be more in line with their roles as underbosses. At various points the wo of them, along with Sonny, Fredo, and at one point Al Nerie. Other established caporgimes would be Willie Cicci and Rocco, along with Al Nerie at some point. Or, perhaps Vito just created new positions for them given their longtime service to the family.

Since we're discussing a movie here it's certainly possible that the Corleone family was structured differently, or that Puzo/FFC took some liberties. In the real world, though, a capo runs a crew, and the Corleones aren't one of the biggest of the five families with only 2 crews. Back to fiction, consider that the DiMeo crime family was relatively small, and even they had a ton of capos (including Richie Appriel, Ralphy, Pauly, later Christopher, and in S1 Tony himself).

That all makes sense; I guess I just never really thought about it.  There are times when someone says "Have some of Tessio's guys take care of it" or "Clemenza is already on it" or some such.  And off camera somewhere it's being taken care of.  I never really considered that we really only see a dozen or so guys, maybe 20 tops, throughout the entire movie, and that includes the Corleone sons.  Certainly the organization is much larger than that; I always imagined hundreds of guys and a vast structure.  So perhaps the issue is really with the terminology.  Capo to me always suggested "Captain" and there of course would be many Captains, each with their crew.  Tessio and Clemenza would be more like Generals, each with several Captains (or Lieutenants or Colonels or whatever) under them.  Is that what you mean by underbosses?

[El Barto]

That all makes sense; I guess I just never really thought about it.  There are times when someone says "Have some of Tessio's guys take care of it" or "Clemenza is already on it" or some such.  And off camera somewhere it's being taken care of.  I never really considered that we really only see a dozen or so guys, maybe 20 tops, throughout the entire movie, and that includes the Corleone sons.  Certainly the organization is much larger than that; I always imagined hundreds of guys and a vast structure.  So perhaps the issue is really with the terminology.  Capo to me always suggested "Captain" and there of course would be many Captains, each with their crew.  Tessio and Clemenza would be more like Generals, each with several Captains (or Lieutenants or Colonels or whatever) under them.  Is that what you mean by underbosses?

In this instance, yeah, but underboss is a real title, and typically there's only one of them. Spock to Kirk. Sonny to Vito. That sort of thing. I suspect that Clemenza and Tessio had kind of unique situations because they'd been along from the beginning. As I recall Vito had told Clemenza and Tessio that they could one day form their own family, which I think might have passed along to Frankie. They were technically capos, like Cicci and Rocko, but they were the senior capos among others.

Honestly, I think proper terminology doesn't really work with the movie. Though, it probably doesn't work so well in real life, either. I can't imagine that lines don't get blurred the same way all the time.

[Cool Chris]

I can't get this image to load in the forum, but it's a picture of the Corleone "family" hierarchy. I believe this is straight from the scene where Michael appears before Congress, so would be considered canon. Vito had 2 Capos, Michael has 3.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/f/f0/Tumblr_o82adgWVK41qcr6iqo1_1280.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170822193052

[Orbert]

Thanks for that!  Pretty much how I'd figured, except that (as mentioned) I hadn't really considered who Michael's capos were.  Al Neri was introduced in the book as Michael's "new Luca Brasi" so I would have informally pegged him as a soldier, but he's clearly much smarter than Luca and we see him working closely with Michael, so if the FBI considers him a capo, then that works, too.  Rocco we knew, and it makes sense that Frankie came in at some point.  I still have this weird hangup (which I admit is 100% my problem and probably no one else's) where I consider the parts of Part II that were in the book -- that is, the "prequel" stuff -- to be canon, while the "sequel" stuff is somehow something less.  It's stuff that Coppola came up with for the sequel as opposed to Mario Puzo's original material.  I know, if it's in the movies, it's all canon.  But I can't help differentiating in my head between the two.

[Stadler]

That all makes sense; I guess I just never really thought about it.  There are times when someone says "Have some of Tessio's guys take care of it" or "Clemenza is already on it" or some such.  And off camera somewhere it's being taken care of.  I never really considered that we really only see a dozen or so guys, maybe 20 tops, throughout the entire movie, and that includes the Corleone sons.  Certainly the organization is much larger than that; I always imagined hundreds of guys and a vast structure.  So perhaps the issue is really with the terminology.  Capo to me always suggested "Captain" and there of course would be many Captains, each with their crew.  Tessio and Clemenza would be more like Generals, each with several Captains (or Lieutenants or Colonels or whatever) under them.  Is that what you mean by underbosses?

In this instance, yeah, but underboss is a real title, and typically there's only one of them. Spock to Kirk. Sonny to Vito. That sort of thing. I suspect that Clemenza and Tessio had kind of unique situations because they'd been along from the beginning. As I recall Vito had told Clemenza and Tessio that they could one day form their own family, which I think might have passed along to Frankie. They were technically capos, like Cicci and Rocko, but they were the senior capos among others.

Honestly, I think proper terminology doesn't really work with the movie. Though, it probably doesn't work so well in real life, either. I can't imagine that lines don't get blurred the same way all the time.

I think you're largely right on all of this.  I think your last line is important, though and I think time has something to do with it.  I imagine the way that, say, the Gambino crime family is laid out today isn't the same as the way families were laid out coming out of WWII.   

[El Barto]

That all makes sense; I guess I just never really thought about it.  There are times when someone says "Have some of Tessio's guys take care of it" or "Clemenza is already on it" or some such.  And off camera somewhere it's being taken care of.  I never really considered that we really only see a dozen or so guys, maybe 20 tops, throughout the entire movie, and that includes the Corleone sons.  Certainly the organization is much larger than that; I always imagined hundreds of guys and a vast structure.  So perhaps the issue is really with the terminology.  Capo to me always suggested "Captain" and there of course would be many Captains, each with their crew.  Tessio and Clemenza would be more like Generals, each with several Captains (or Lieutenants or Colonels or whatever) under them.  Is that what you mean by underbosses?

In this instance, yeah, but underboss is a real title, and typically there's only one of them. Spock to Kirk. Sonny to Vito. That sort of thing. I suspect that Clemenza and Tessio had kind of unique situations because they'd been along from the beginning. As I recall Vito had told Clemenza and Tessio that they could one day form their own family, which I think might have passed along to Frankie. They were technically capos, like Cicci and Rocko, but they were the senior capos among others.

Honestly, I think proper terminology doesn't really work with the movie. Though, it probably doesn't work so well in real life, either. I can't imagine that lines don't get blurred the same way all the time.

I think you're largely right on all of this.  I think your last line is important, though and I think time has something to do with it.  I imagine the way that, say, the Gambino crime family is laid out today isn't the same as the way families were laid out coming out of WWII.   

Well, keep in mind that these are folks with a massive hard-on for tradition, and went so far as to adopt a 4000 year old nomenclature for their organizational structure. I think it just has more to do with Puzo building the Corleone family in a peculiar way. It does seem to be spelled out that there are only two regimes (three under Michael), but that's just not how it would work. Tessio and Clemenza really seemed to operate more as underbosses.

[Metro]

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom

It's a move where things happen and characters say things and do stuff and they fight each other and there's a bunch of water and a crab man with a Welsh accent.
It's a functional movie. I have no strong feelings about it.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

The Woman in the Dunes (1964)

absolutely perfect film. wow.

[MirrorMask]

Jackie Brown. Never seen it so far, but it was on Netflix so what the heck...

I liked it, it was weird to see SLJ with all those hair  maybe not Tarantino's best work but you could see some of his trademarks already there. Also I could totally see the bail bondsman growing up to be eventually Breaking Bad's disappearer, a change of carrer for the same character 

Also I'm a bit surprised at how Tarantino got DeNiro, for a relatively small role - I mean, he was one of the main characters but any random Tarantino recurring actor could have played that part, what was so special for the role that DeNiro had to do it?

[pg1067]

Jackie Brown. Never seen it so far, but it was on Netflix so what the heck...

When I was in law school, I clerked with a law firm during the summer between my second and third years (it was the firm I where I ended up working for a dozen years after I graduated).  Most of the work given to us summer associates was writing research memos, but one of the assignments given to me was to go to the theater and watch Jackie Brown because we represented a client who made a product that was used in the movie, and the client was concerned about the product being used in scenes with drug use (or something like that).  I think the product was some sort of beer, so that that was kinda funny.

[El Barto]

Jackie Brown. Never seen it so far, but it was on Netflix so what the heck...

I liked it, it was weird to see SLJ with all those hair  maybe not Tarantino's best work but you could see some of his trademarks already there. Also I could totally see the bail bondsman growing up to be eventually Breaking Bad's disappearer, a change of carrer for the same character 

Also I'm a bit surprised at how Tarantino got DeNiro, for a relatively small role - I mean, he was one of the main characters but any random Tarantino recurring actor could have played that part, what was so special for the role that DeNiro had to do it?

I suspect that all either one of them had to do was ask. It's not like DeNiro needs the money. He probably would have done it for scale just to work with QT. Also, it was a highly against type character for RD. I'm sure there was some appeal to playing an older, simpleton lackey.

I thought it was a good movie, and the thing with Louis and Melanie in the parking lot is one of Tarantino's funniest scenes. "You couldn't have just hit her or somethin? Well, if you had to do it you had to do it." 

As for Forester, I suppose it's possible, but something really terrible would have had to happen to him in the interim. Max Cherry was a good, honourable guy. The Disappearer was an asshole. And a criminal asshole, to boot. Max Cherry wasn't the sort of guy that's going to charge a lonely, dying man $10,000 for an hour's worth of company.

[King Postwhore]

I remember the hype for that movie after Pulp Fiction.

[MirrorMask]

Saw The Society of the Snow. One of those movies one watches only once I guess - it was great, poignant, beautifully shot and with many amazing visuals, but I don't know if I'll want to relive again the horrible ordeal of those poor guys who spent more than two months trying to survive in the Andes after their plane crashed in the middle of the snowy mountains.

If this was a completely fictional story, I would have considered the avalanche that killed more of the initial survivors and trapped them inside the wreckage for several days an unnecessary drama for the sake or further drama, but no, it happened for real - not only they got shipwrecked in the middle of a gigantic mountain range, they really had the additional misfortune of an avalanche hitting them. Poor guys. Their survival is one of the greatest reminders of human endurance in the face of adversity.

[Sacul]

I still have to watch that one, it was huge here back in January I think.

[pg1067]

Saw The Society of the Snow. One of those movies one watches only once I guess - it was great, poignant, beautifully shot and with many amazing visuals, but I don't know if I'll want to relive again the horrible ordeal of those poor guys who spent more than two months trying to survive in the Andes after their plane crashed in the middle of the snowy mountains.

If this was a completely fictional story, I would have considered the avalanche that killed more of the initial survivors and trapped them inside the wreckage for several days an unnecessary drama for the sake or further drama, but no, it happened for real - not only they got shipwrecked in the middle of a gigantic mountain range, they really had the additional misfortune of an avalanche hitting them. Poor guys. Their survival is one of the greatest reminders of human endurance in the face of adversity.

Isn't this basically the same as this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film) ??

[MirrorMask]

Yup, that's another movie about the same tragedy.

[Glasser]

Zoe Gone.

[hefdaddy42]

Poor Things

What a strange and wonderful film! Easy to see why it got nominated for Best Picture, although I doubt it wins. A totally weird story, with phenomenal acting performances by everyone involved, especially Emma Stone, and more sex than any non-porno I've ever seen. Also, the visual effects are stunning, with the most brilliant color pallette I've ever seen (once it transitions over from black & white).

Two thumbs up!