RealGM

humanrefutation wrote:I thought Jamie Foxx was alright. I do wonder what it would've been like if Will Smith accepted the role when he was offered it first.

Would have been WAY better. The thing that had me skeptical going into the movie and the one slight blemish coming out of the movie was Foxx. He is just not a very good actor; not bad, but nowhere near Smith's level.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie more than I did Basterds though, and by a pretty solid margin. Waltz was just fantastic.

Waltz was phenomenal in the last two QT movies, and in Water for Elephants. I didn't care for his character in Green Hornet, 3 Musketeers, and Carnage

RiotPunch wrote:

humanrefutation wrote:I thought Jamie Foxx was alright. I do wonder what it would've been like if Will Smith accepted the role when he was offered it first.

Would have been WAY better. The thing that had me skeptical going into the movie and the one slight blemish coming out of the movie was Foxx. He is just not a very good actor; not bad, but nowhere near Smith's level.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie more than I did Basterds though, and by a pretty solid margin. Waltz was just fantastic.

There's no way that Will Smith could have pulled off Django in the iteration that was presented to him.

None. Zero. Zilch.

My guess (based on hearing things and reading things) is Quentin realized that, too. That's why he was unwilling to address Will's script concerns. Not only would it have marginalized the character, it likely would have hurt the story.

Need an example? Find Steve Conrad's early drafts of Pursuit of Happyness. Now watch the movie and notice the changes. Better? Debatable. But what's not debatable is the fact that the "edge" was taken off the main character.

I imagine the Will Smith version of Django would have had him "saving" and "sparing" people to the detriment of the story. If you want to see what Will Smith's version of Django might feel like, watch that piece of **** movie THE BLIND SIDE.

DrugBust wrote:I made a list of my favorite fifty or so flicks and I'm gonna re-watch them all in the coming months. First one up tonight was LA Confidential. I can't imagine the kind of buzz a flick would get like this in the Twitter age. I remember it getting buried in terms of hype by Titanic, The Full Monty and Good Will Hunting in '97. It would kill everything in recent memory.

50 or so movies in the next coming months? Geez you have some time on your hands. You should instead watch the 50 or so worst movies of all time. First up is Gigli!

SupremeHustle wrote:

RiotPunch wrote:

humanrefutation wrote:I thought Jamie Foxx was alright. I do wonder what it would've been like if Will Smith accepted the role when he was offered it first.

Would have been WAY better. The thing that had me skeptical going into the movie and the one slight blemish coming out of the movie was Foxx. He is just not a very good actor; not bad, but nowhere near Smith's level.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie more than I did Basterds though, and by a pretty solid margin. Waltz was just fantastic.

There's no way that Will Smith could have pulled off Django in the iteration that was presented to him.

None. Zero. Zilch.

My guess (based on hearing things and reading things) is Quentin realized that, too. That's why he was unwilling to address Will's script concerns. Not only would it have marginalized the character, it likely would have hurt the story.

Need an example? Find Steve Conrad's early drafts of Pursuit of Happyness. Now watch the movie and notice the changes. Better? Debatable. But what's not debatable is the fact that the "edge" was taken off the main character.

I imagine the Will Smith version of Django would have had him "saving" and "sparing" people to the detriment of the story. If you want to see what Will Smith's version of Django might feel like, watch that piece of **** movie THE BLIND SIDE.

Good points. Didn't mean to rattle your Big Willie Style cage. I was mainly just trying to express my underwhelming opinion of Foxx. His performance in certain moments brought down the movie as a whole, and I think QT could have done a bit better. I agree though, after thinking about it more, that Will would have struggled to be that cold-hearted murderous assassin.

RiotPunch wrote:
Good points. Didn't mean to rattle your Big Willie Style cage.

Awesome.

You didn't rattle my cage! THAT'S JUST THE WAY I TALK!

I can't believe anyone believes Will Smith is a better actor than Jamie Foxx. I guess to each his own but whew, take away Booty Call and the resumes speak for themselves. While I think Smith has carved out a nice little niche for himself as an action star, he doesn't have the chops to stack up to Foxx. TBH, I've always had an issue with him since he ruined Ali.

This situation reminds me a bit of Basterds. Initially Adam Sandler was supposed to play Eli Roth's character of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowicz. In fact the part was specifically written for him ash e and QT are very good friends. In the end he dropped to film "Funny People" and Roth was asked to do it. While the character was small, it was significant, and the more I think about it, Sandler could have ruined the entire movie given 5 minutes of screen time.

Finally found the time to catch up on Fringe, man this season has been awesome, sad that there are only 3 more episodes left.

jakecronus8 wrote:This situation reminds me a bit of Basterds. Initially Adam Sandler was supposed to play Eli Roth's character of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowicz. In fact the part was specifically written for him ash e and QT are very good friends. In the end he dropped to film "Funny People" and Roth was asked to do it. While the character was small, it was significant, and the more I think about it, Sandler could have ruined the entire movie given 5 minutes of screen time.

My god that would have been horrible.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:

jakecronus8 wrote:This situation reminds me a bit of Basterds. Initially Adam Sandler was supposed to play Eli Roth's character of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowicz. In fact the part was specifically written for him ash e and QT are very good friends. In the end he dropped to film "Funny People" and Roth was asked to do it. While the character was small, it was significant, and the more I think about it, Sandler could have ruined the entire movie given 5 minutes of screen time.

My god that would have been horrible.

No doubt. The Mike Myers cameo was bad enough.

Anyone keeping up with the final season of The Office or season 5 of Parks & Rec? I'm excited for both to return.

Also excited to check out 1600 Penn. Looks pretty funny.

Caught the pilot of 1600 Penn. Other than seeing Bill Pullman as the president again I wasn't impressed.

RiotPunch wrote:Lincoln was very good, but I would not call it great. It was very slow and focused a bit too much on the wrong things, I thought. Some people raved about it, but it was something like a 7/10 for me.

Lincoln: DD Lewis is a lock for best actor and Tommy Lee Jones may get best supporting. It is the kind of politically correct movie the Academy loves. It's basically another Shindler's List type movie. It was very narrowly focused exclusively on the 13th Ammendment Freeing the slaves. These movies are never that entertaining, but it was very well done.

The most entertaining flicks I have seen this year (no order); Safety Not Guaranteed, End of Watch, Arbitrage, Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall, and The Avengers.

John Dies at the End was the most unique movie, and kept your interest.
Ted was the funniest.
Disappointments: Taken 2, Dredd, and Killing Them Softly

I thought The Avengers was horrible and Batman was okay, but I'm so tired of all the superhero stuff.


2012 Favorites: Lawless, Argo, Lincoln, Moonrise Kingdom, End of Watch, The Grey, Looper, Ted, Marley, 21 Jump Street.


Haven't seen Django or Zero yet.

Be nice when a movie comes out about Wall Street that doesn't demonize the industry. All in all, a good year for film.

blazza18 wrote:Caught the pilot of 1600 Penn. Other than seeing Bill Pullman as the president again I wasn't impressed.

When NBC showed a special preview about a month ago it was so poorly received it trended on twitter for the better part of a day just by people talking about how awful it was.

I just saw Ted about a week ago and I thought it was incredibly overrated. With that being said I'm not a fan of Family Guy at all. Although the little bit of Seth MacFarlane stand up I've seen is actually pretty decent.

Nebula1 wrote:Be nice when a movie comes out about Wall Street that doesn't demonize the industry. All in all, a good year for film.

Agreed, I usually avoid all Wall Street movies because I just assume it will be a politically motivated 90 minute smear by some liberal director.

Nebula1 wrote:I thought The Avengers was horrible and Batman was okay, but I'm so tired of all the superhero stuff.


2012 Favorites: Lawless, Argo, Lincoln, Moonrise Kingdom, End of Watch, The Grey, Looper, Ted, Marley, 21 Jump Street.


Haven't seen Django or Zero yet.

Be nice when a movie comes out about Wall Street that doesn't demonize the industry. All in all, a good year for film.

I'm not a huge super hero guy either- it def has been over-played, but they will keep doing it until the crowds bow out. That said, I still found them to be well done and entertaining, but didn't even bother to see Spiderman, Green whatever, and Captain America.

As far as Wall Street- I've been in the Financial services industry for 15+ years- most of my adult life. I really have no problem with anything about the movie Arbitrage or the Wall Streets or that other movie about the banking collapse. There was/is a lot of dirty crap being played out there by a few ultra greedy that ruin it for the rest. Hard to pick stocks today because of all the programmed trades being made which often have nothing to do with the tech/financial health of a company. A few people can unfairly manipulate the market like never before. The banking/mortgage collapse was easy to forecast - was shorting the **** out of the market and getting all my clients who would listen to do so as well. That was another careless greedy act- they deserve the fallout. Wallstreet has always been kind of villianized and will continue to in the future.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:I just saw Ted about a week ago and I thought it was incredibly overrated. With that being said I'm not a fan of Family Guy at all. Although the little bit of Seth MacFarlane stand up I've seen is actually pretty decent.

Nebula1 wrote:Be nice when a movie comes out about Wall Street that doesn't demonize the industry. All in all, a good year for film.

Agreed, I usually avoid all Wall Street movies because I just assume it will be a politically motivated 90 minute smear by some liberal director.

Uh-oh.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/

Damn, I'll probably have to check that one out just because Scorsese and Dicaprio are probably the best Director/Actor combo going right now.

I gave 1600 Penn fifteen minutes and knew it was a bust. From what I saw the stupidity of the son is it's down fall.

Out of boredom for lack of something else to watch, we have watched several episodes of Full Throttle Saloon the last two days. That show is interesting to me because of the logistics of pulling that event off, and the dailey fires that raise up constantly that need putting out.

The money that thing brings in is crazy. Four million dollars in ten days!

Fast forward through any Rusty scenes and it a cool show. We started watching it because my wife thought it said Full Throttle Salon instead of Saloon. We ended up liking it.