|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 20, 2019 19:02:45 GMT
I was exactly the opposite. I was less impressed with Django and thought Inglorious Basterds was about as good as anything he ever did. I know that there's a suspension of belief that you have to have to like Tarantino. Mr Orange bleeds 75 gallons of blood and can still shoot straight. The Bride can kill hundreds of trained assassins, not one who brought a gun. But Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy did not die in a French movie theater in 1944. His movies aren't history documentaries but jeez. Like the whale said when he seen Jonah "I'm not swallowing that."
And Hateful 8 just dragged, never thought a QT movie would bore me.
Well, yeah... I guess if you can't get over the historical inaccuracies then there's just nothing more to say. But I feel like that's basically a non-issue for most people. We all know that's not what happened, so starting from the idea that it's a fantasy approach to historical fiction would seem fair. It's also a movie, primarily, about propaganda and film itself. I thought that approach reinforced those themes.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 20, 2019 19:04:57 GMT
This is adorable, you accuse me of having thin skin because you can't take someone calling you out, and you do so by smearing your vagina blood all over the place. Grow up, spaz. And no, I'm not a chef, but everything else is true. Accept it or don't, your belief is not required, nor is it relevant to me. He's clearly drunk again, just let him vent and everything will be fine. Yeah, he seems to have lashing-out psychotic break from time to time. He'll probably be cool enough and pleasant again by tomorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 19:06:35 GMT
He's clearly drunk again, just let him vent and everything will be fine. Yeah, he seems to have lashing-out psychotic break from time to time. He'll probably be cool enough and pleasant again by tomorrow. Don't count on it - I took off for the opening Thursday and Friday of March Madness and loaded up
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Mar 20, 2019 19:30:12 GMT
I have never met a Tarantino movie I didn't like, so I am looking forward to this new one.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 20, 2019 19:30:38 GMT
I know that there's a suspension of belief that you have to have to like Tarantino. Mr Orange bleeds 75 gallons of blood and can still shoot straight. The Bride can kill hundreds of trained assassins, not one who brought a gun. But Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy did not die in a French movie theater in 1944. His movies aren't history documentaries but jeez. Like the whale said when he seen Jonah "I'm not swallowing that."
And Hateful 8 just dragged, never thought a QT movie would bore me.
Well, yeah... I guess if you can't get over the historical inaccuracies then there's just nothing more to say. But I feel like that's basically a non-issue for most people. We all know that's not what happened, so starting from the idea that it's a fantasy approach to historical fiction would seem fair. It's also a movie, primarily, about propaganda and film itself. I thought that approach reinforced those themes. It wasn't my only complaint. I thought "The Basterds" themselves were kind of dull, other than the tunnel scene. The opening scene was one of QT's best. It had an amazing Western feel, the isolated farmers and the hideous danger approaching. Maybe it set the bar too high. Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent were fantastic. And I can name 75,000 worse movies. But it wasn't up to the Kill Bill's, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.
I've read that, from some advanced screenings, Bruce Dern might be a lock for multiple acting awards for his portrayal of George Spahn. Margot Robbie could be good as the Sharon Tate.
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Mar 20, 2019 22:27:25 GMT
I'm a big Tarantino fan but I wasn't all in on two of his last three (Basterds and Eight). I have high hopes for this one. I thought both of those movies sucked and really everything since Pulp has been severly overrated. But I love the Bruce Lee in this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 22:58:57 GMT
why no love for From Dusk Til Dawn in this thread
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Mar 20, 2019 23:00:07 GMT
why no love for From Dusk Til Dawn in this thread My favorite Tarantino movie, but he only wrote it, it was directed by Robert Rodriguez.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 23:00:23 GMT
I guess everybody is so 'cool' in this thread that reservoir dogs sucks too eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 23:02:20 GMT
why no love for From Dusk Til Dawn in this thread My favorite Tarantino movie, but he only wrote it, it was directed by Robert Rodriguez. oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....he 'only wrote it'.............no talent hack
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 21, 2019 11:22:33 GMT
I guess everybody is so 'cool' in this thread that reservoir dogs sucks too eh? Ha, what a bitch. How many 1% ABV beers had you downed by this point?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 21, 2019 11:58:01 GMT
I guess everybody is so 'cool' in this thread that reservoir dogs sucks too eh? It's my favorite Tarantino film. Honestly it was all downhill from there. I also enjoy True Romance, though he only wrote that one.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 21, 2019 12:13:48 GMT
I guess everybody is so 'cool' in this thread that reservoir dogs sucks too eh? It's my favorite Tarantino film. Honestly it was all downhill from there. I also enjoy True Romance, though he only wrote that one. Really? I love Reservoir Dogs, but I think it would be widely accepted that Pulp Fiction is, at the very least, more accomplished, if not better. I'd understand preferring Reservoir Dogs, but it would be hard for me to accept considering Pulp Fiction to be a step down in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 21, 2019 12:20:54 GMT
It's my favorite Tarantino film. Honestly it was all downhill from there. I also enjoy True Romance, though he only wrote that one. Really? I love Reservoir Dogs, but I think it would be widely accepted that Pulp Fiction is, at the very least, more accomplished, if not better. I'd understand preferring Reservoir Dogs, but it would be hard for me to accept considering Pulp Fiction to be a step down in any way. It's a matter of personal taste I guess. I'm not talking about film quality, just the movies I enjoy. Pulp Fiction has a few great scenes, but I can't imagine ever deciding to throw it on and watch it start to finish again. I could watch Reservoir Dogs right now. I've never seen any other Tarantino movie start to finish, and what I have seen of everything from Jackie Brown to Kill Bill to Inglorious Basterds to Hateful Eight has been awful. I'm not a QT hater, either. I've discovered most of his fans love his films but hate to hear him talk. I'm the opposite. I don't like his movies but I could listen to him talk shop all day. He has an interesting viewpoint but for whatever reason I can't connect with his films for the most part. All that said, this one looks like fun and I'll probably check it out in the theater.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 21, 2019 12:38:47 GMT
Well, yeah... I guess if you can't get over the historical inaccuracies then there's just nothing more to say. But I feel like that's basically a non-issue for most people. We all know that's not what happened, so starting from the idea that it's a fantasy approach to historical fiction would seem fair. It's also a movie, primarily, about propaganda and film itself. I thought that approach reinforced those themes. It wasn't my only complaint. I thought "The Basterds" themselves were kind of dull, other than the tunnel scene. The opening scene was one of QT's best. It had an amazing Western feel, the isolated farmers and the hideous danger approaching. Maybe it set the bar too high. Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent were fantastic. And I can name 75,000 worse movies. But it wasn't up to the Kill Bill's, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.
I've read that, from some advanced screenings, Bruce Dern might be a lock for multiple acting awards for his portrayal of George Spahn. Margot Robbie could be good as the Sharon Tate.
I think a lot of people had an issue with the fact that it was sbilled, and titled, as their movie, and 5hat Tarantino talked about the movie being his 'men on a mission' movie and his The Dirty Dozen etc. and the it was just one thread of many in the film, and maybe the one with the least screen time. That's understandable, but I enjoyed the time they had. I liked that they had their moments and had suggestions of a much larger history and story that we just weren't really privy to. Like, for instance, I could watch a whole movie about Hugo Stiglitz the Nazi murdering German soldier who is trying to brutally take down the third Reich from the inside but may be a bit to blood thirsty to be completely effective. But I also like that he's this fascinating character but he's not even one of our main characters. The movie is full of these fully realized people with their own full stories that we only see in passing. He's always subverting the tropes of the genres he's trying to also emulate, and that's probably most evident in this movie. It's a war movie with no battle scenes with the closest thing to it being his men-on-a-mission being seen just after the battle has ended in their best scene. I also thought the basement scene that mirrors the first with Diane Kruger, Michael Fassbender, and August Diehl among others speaking almost entirely in German is just about as good as that opening scene, if not quite there. I also think it's got his best true climax, which also has one of the best constructed images in his entire category. The shot of the film of Shoshana projecting on the smoke of the burning screen and film stock is about as good as any composition he ever captured. And I love how the film comments on film and on propaganda and on the audience and on the reception of the film and the violence on film that Tarantino always copped shit for. Maybe it got a little too self aware at times, but since that seemed to go over a lot of people's heads it seemed to me that he nailed it. Having his character declare it his masterpiece may have been a step to far for some, but I didn't argue with him. In any event, I too am looking forward to this one. I'd love it if Bruce Dern nailed his performance, but it's a little sad that Burt Reynolds didn't get his chance to get one last great role.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 21, 2019 12:51:17 GMT
Really? I love Reservoir Dogs, but I think it would be widely accepted that Pulp Fiction is, at the very least, more accomplished, if not better. I'd understand preferring Reservoir Dogs, but it would be hard for me to accept considering Pulp Fiction to be a step down in any way. It's a matter of personal taste I guess. I'm not talking about film quality, just the movies I enjoy. Pulp Fiction has a few great scenes, but I can't imagine ever deciding to throw it on and watch it start to finish again. I could watch Reservoir Dogs right now. I've never seen any other Tarantino movie start to finish, and what I have seen of everything from Jackie Brown to Kill Bill to Inglorious Basterds to Hateful Eight has been awful. I'm not a QT hater, either. I've discovered most of his fans love his films but hate to hear him talk. I'm the opposite. I don't like his movies but I could listen to him talk shop all day. He has an interesting viewpoint but for whatever reason I can't connect with his films for the most part. All that said, this one looks like fun and I'll probably check it out in the theater. Interesting. I'm quite the opposite in that if I catch a moment of Pulp Ficiton on TV it's essentially impossible for me to turn it off. If I see it from any point I'm most likely going to watch it to the end. There really isn't any scene that doesn't keep me engaged to the next. Personal taste is undeniable, there's no accounting for it after all, but I'd have to take some issue with saying any of those films are 'awful.' To me that's just not reasonable. There are simply too many objectively great performances, too much great cinematography and editing, too much great music. If you're not into the dialogue and hos characters I could see being turned off, but I find it difficult to accept that his films are 'awful.' That's a step too far for me. At the absolute very least he's making better films than the average Hollywood output. Except maybe Death Proof. I like it, but I know some found it dull and grating. Maybe part of the issue is not watching the movies from beginning to end as they are intended. I wouldn't really recommend watching much of anything that way.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 21, 2019 13:31:07 GMT
It's a matter of personal taste I guess. I'm not talking about film quality, just the movies I enjoy. Pulp Fiction has a few great scenes, but I can't imagine ever deciding to throw it on and watch it start to finish again. I could watch Reservoir Dogs right now. I've never seen any other Tarantino movie start to finish, and what I have seen of everything from Jackie Brown to Kill Bill to Inglorious Basterds to Hateful Eight has been awful. I'm not a QT hater, either. I've discovered most of his fans love his films but hate to hear him talk. I'm the opposite. I don't like his movies but I could listen to him talk shop all day. He has an interesting viewpoint but for whatever reason I can't connect with his films for the most part. All that said, this one looks like fun and I'll probably check it out in the theater. Interesting. I'm quite the opposite in that if I catch a moment of Pulp Ficiton on TV it's essentially impossible for me to turn it off. If I see it from any point I'm most likely going to watch it to the end. There really isn't any scene that doesn't keep me engaged to the next. Personal taste is undeniable, there's no accounting for it after all, but I'd have to take some issue with saying any of those films are 'awful.' To me that's just not reasonable. There are simply too many objectively great performances, too much great cinematography and editing, too much great music. If you're not into the dialogue and hos characters I could see being turned off, but I find it difficult to accept that his films are 'awful.' That's a step too far for me. At the absolute very least he's making better films than the average Hollywood output. Except maybe Death Proof. I like it, but I know some found it dull and grating. Maybe part of the issue is not watching the movies from beginning to end as they are intended. I wouldn't really recommend watching much of anything that way. I don't think that's the problem. I was raised by cable television so most of the films I saw were from somewhere in the middle, and I found a lot of great movies that way. By awful I mean his films don't interest me. I don't even know what Jackie Brown was about. Kill Bill has far too many scenes that just drag on forever. The esthetic in that flick is hit or miss. It's shot very well but the guys losing arms and blood spraying everywhere is just so over the top. Something about Basterds bothers me (besides the misspelled title and Pitt's ridiculous accent); this idea that it's history but it's not, I don't know. I had no interest in Hateful Eight. I tried to watch a scene on tv and couldn't get through it. The thing is, I'm a story guy. If I'm not invested in the story or the people it's going to be a tough sell. Tarantino mostly writes unlikeable characters, which works in some cases but not always. Snappy dialog doesn't mean anything if I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. And if I don't care about what's actually happening in the story, it doesn't matter how well it's shot. So to be clear, I would never call Tarantino a terrible filmmaker, but I'd say some of his movies looked awful to me. Maybe it doesn't make any sense, but that's where I'm at. If it makes you feel any better (or worse) about my personal taste, I feel the same about a few Scorsese flicks such as The Departed and Wolf of Wall Street (I haven't even seen WoWS). Objectively solid films sure, but I can't stand them because none of the characters ever pulled me in. If the final scene ended with a mushroom cloud it wouldn't have made a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 16:43:06 GMT
I guess everybody is so 'cool' in this thread that reservoir dogs sucks too eh? Ha, what a bitch. How many 1% ABV beers had you downed by this point? The jokes on you - I only drink 4.2% Michelob Ultra
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 21, 2019 16:50:26 GMT
It wasn't my only complaint. I thought "The Basterds" themselves were kind of dull, other than the tunnel scene. The opening scene was one of QT's best. It had an amazing Western feel, the isolated farmers and the hideous danger approaching. Maybe it set the bar too high. Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent were fantastic. And I can name 75,000 worse movies. But it wasn't up to the Kill Bill's, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.
I've read that, from some advanced screenings, Bruce Dern might be a lock for multiple acting awards for his portrayal of George Spahn. Margot Robbie could be good as the Sharon Tate.
I think a lot of people had an issue with the fact that it was sbilled, and titled, as their movie, and 5hat Tarantino talked about the movie being his 'men on a mission' movie and his The Dirty Dozen etc. and the it was just one thread of many in the film, and maybe the one with the least screen time. That's understandable, but I enjoyed the time they had. I liked that they had their moments and had suggestions of a much larger history and story that we just weren't really privy to. Like, for instance, I could watch a whole movie about Hugo Stiglitz the Nazi murdering German soldier who is trying to brutally take down the third Reich from the inside but may be a bit to blood thirsty to be completely effective. But I also like that he's this fascinating character but he's not even one of our main characters. The movie is full of these fully realized people with their own full stories that we only see in passing. He's always subverting the tropes of the genres he's trying to also emulate, and that's probably most evident in this movie. It's a war movie with no battle scenes with the closest thing to it being his men-on-a-mission being seen just after the battle has ended in their best scene. I also thought the basement scene that mirrors the first with Diane Kruger, Michael Fassbender, and August Diehl among others speaking almost entirely in German is just about as good as that opening scene, if not quite there. I also think it's got his best true climax, which also has one of the best constructed images in his entire category. The shot of the film of Shoshana projecting on the smoke of the burning screen and film stock is about as good as any composition he ever captured. And I love how the film comments on film and on propaganda and on the audience and on the reception of the film and the violence on film that Tarantino always copped shit for. Maybe it got a little too self aware at times, but since that seemed to go over a lot of people's heads it seemed to me that he nailed it. Having his character declare it his masterpiece may have been a step to far for some, but I didn't argue with him. In any event, I too am looking forward to this one. I'd love it if Bruce Dern nailed his performance, but it's a little sad that Burt Reynolds didn't get his chance to get one last great role. I read that Tarantino wrote the role of George Spahn to get Reynolds an Oscar. Dern should be perfect. Bruce Dern, the only credited actor to kill John Wayne in a movie. Every other time, it was a nobody. The Sands of Iwo Jima, The Fighting Seebees, The Alamo, the squid in Reap the Wild Wind. The bartender in the Shootist had some screentime but he wasn't listed in the credits. Dern alone
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Mar 21, 2019 17:23:48 GMT
Really? I love Reservoir Dogs, but I think it would be widely accepted that Pulp Fiction is, at the very least, more accomplished, if not better. I'd understand preferring Reservoir Dogs, but it would be hard for me to accept considering Pulp Fiction to be a step down in any way. It's a matter of personal taste I guess. I'm not talking about film quality, just the movies I enjoy. Pulp Fiction has a few great scenes, but I can't imagine ever deciding to throw it on and watch it start to finish again. I could watch Reservoir Dogs right now. I've never seen any other Tarantino movie start to finish, and what I have seen of everything from Jackie Brown to Kill Bill to Inglorious Basterds to Hateful Eight has been awful. I'm not a QT hater, either. I've discovered most of his fans love his films but hate to hear him talk. I'm the opposite. I don't like his movies but I could listen to him talk shop all day. He has an interesting viewpoint but for whatever reason I can't connect with his films for the most part. All that said, this one looks like fun and I'll probably check it out in the theater. Jackie Brown was the beginning of the end for me. I was bored stiff. Every one of his films after were even more boring. Kill Bill has to be the most overrated film in history. All his films need a lot of editing but he's in love with his own over the top dialog.
|
|