|
Post by jeffk on Mar 31, 2019 5:57:22 GMT
I lost interest in Tarantino shortly after the Kill Bill movies (which I enjoyed) but the trailer for his upcoming film looks pretty good! It has the star power of DiCaprio and Pitt, Al Pacino. Bruce Lee, Sharron Tate and Charles Manson all pop up. It looks like a cross between Pulp Fiction and Boogie Nights. It's supposedly Tarantino's 'valentine' to a changing Hollywood of the late 60's.
|
|
Sneelock
god
hey Daddy-O. I don't wanna go.
Posts: 8,506
|
Post by Sneelock on Apr 1, 2019 18:21:31 GMT
I have mixed feelings about QT but I think the preview is very promising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 20:25:28 GMT
I thought DiCaprio was Scorcese's exclusive actor.
|
|
|
Post by phenomenalcat on Apr 1, 2019 21:33:54 GMT
The fucking Easybeats!
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Apr 1, 2019 21:36:08 GMT
I'll watch Pacino asleep for 3 hours.
I'm ALL OVER THIS
|
|
|
Post by driftin on Apr 2, 2019 8:57:28 GMT
The trailer looks fine, it certainly appears to be a Tarantino film. My worry is the whole Sharon Tate and Charles Manson stuff. Tarantino's not exactly known for being subtle when it comes to sensitive subjects.
|
|
|
Post by jeffk on Apr 6, 2019 3:42:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Apr 8, 2019 13:16:41 GMT
I’ll watch it like I do all of Tarantino’s films but I’ve been largely unimpressed since Kill Bill.
I’ll interested to see how he handles the period though and the cast is strong (Margot Robbie makes the blood in my penis boil)
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Nov 30, 2019 6:58:00 GMT
Now the dust has settled...one of the films of the year?
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,776
Member is Online
|
Post by loveless on Nov 30, 2019 23:32:00 GMT
I haven't seen nearly enough films to make that judgement, but...yes, for me it was pretty major.
"FIX YOUR FUCKIN' CAR!!!"
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 14, 2019 15:24:58 GMT
It really rubbed me the wrong way at the time, and perhaps more so in retrospect.
I can’t fully dismiss it. Tarantino is too great a stylist to write any of his films off. But I really don’t get what this film is supposed to add up to. Or more damningly, perhaps I DO get it, and (to quote Peggy Lee), is that all there is?
|
|
Sneelock
god
hey Daddy-O. I don't wanna go.
Posts: 8,506
|
Post by Sneelock on Dec 14, 2019 22:38:42 GMT
The theme of the movie, in a nutshell, IMO: “ Old Hollywood should have kicked “New Hollywood”’s ass.” I’ll admit it’s not exactly Dickens but I think it’s enough that the film doesn’t ring as hollow for me as it did for you.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 16, 2019 8:09:22 GMT
The theme of the movie, in a nutshell, IMO: “ Old Hollywood should have kicked “New Hollywood”’s ass.” I’ll admit it’s not exactly Dickens but I think it’s enough that the film doesn’t ring as hollow for me as it did for you. The last thing I want to do is make it ring more hollow to you, or to anyone else. I don’t think I’ve actively struggled more with any work of art from the last few decades than this one. I guess that’s a big point in its favor - but something REALLY bugs me about this film. Part of it IS the feeling I get that it (like all of Tarantino’s films) is as you perceive it: a movie about movies. But it puts real-life murders at its center. That makes it hard for me to care about old Hollywood vs. new Hollywood... or Hollywood at all. I keep imagining Alan Alda saying “comedy is tragedy plus time,” and maybe enough time has gone by that most people are ready to find the Mansons kind of ironic and funny. I was too young to remember the Tate-LaBianca murders, but I do remember being a child in LA in the aftermath. There was a palpable sense of fear all around us for years after. That is baggage that I take into this film that other younger viewers don’t (though I imagine you can relate). As I age, I’m coming to grips it’s the fact that most of the stories of my time are being handed to a new generation - and that they get to make whatever they will out of them. So there are shitty Beatle movies where refugees from American Idol sing Beatle songs, a shitty Freddy Mercury film, a shitty Elton John film, and more atrocities to come. That’s the generational right of those weaned on Glee. Nobody needs me around grumbling about how they got it all wrong. In the world of the future Woodstock is a festival where Green Day started a mud fight. But Tarantino is of our generation. He knows what we know. The charitable interpretation is that he’s making a point about the falseness of movies by giving us the ending we didn’t even know we want. But he’s made that point already in Inglorious Basterds AND Django Unchained - and I’m not sure that it was a weighty-enough point for even one of those films, let alone three. Or maybe we’re being implicated as an audience for cheering on the over-the-top violence at the end of all three films - but I didn’t. Or maybe it really just IS about a generational change in Hollywood. But then, why drag the Manson’s into THAT story? Whatever his intentions, Sharon Tate and her friends remain dead - despite being used as action figures for Tarantino’s movie about movies. Maybe I should lighten up. But if it bends...it’s funny. If it breaks, it’s not funny.
|
|
Sneelock
god
hey Daddy-O. I don't wanna go.
Posts: 8,506
|
Post by Sneelock on Dec 17, 2019 17:07:48 GMT
I'd rank it with my favorites of his but I know what you mean. I love that old Daffy Duck gag where he finally upstages Bugs Bunny by doing his "show-stopper" it stops the show alright. the only problem is - he can only do it once..
I think it's a fair criticism of QT that he's done his showstopper trick and he's done it more than once. Maybe If I could have watched "Inglorious Bastards" without wanting to vomit then this would have bothered me more.
QT name checks many of my favorite film makers (Fuller, Aldrich.. guys like that). what is it that he admires about them? well, judging by his own work and things he says about them - a great many things. Something it seems he may admire but does not carry over into his own work or appreciations is "humanity".
I think many of the film makers he promotes and endorses (and to some extent is influence by) were fundamentally humanitarians. Their films are shot through with calls to decency. sometimes this is done by underlining a lack of decency in the stories they depict but I think many of these films are "message" films. Even if the message of "once upon a time..." is as I've described - well, it's not really much of a message.
So, while I like his films and find him very talented he strikes me as sort of like Lenny Kravetz when it seemed like he wanted to be Hendrix. the thing that was missing of course is that he wasn't Hendrix.
Now, QT casts a very wide net. he references and idolizes films that frankly don't do a whole lot for me. I do respond to enthusiasm however and can go along up to a point as long as I don't want to vomit.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Dec 17, 2019 17:15:29 GMT
QT name checks many of my favorite film makers (Fuller, Aldrich.. guys like that). what is it that he admires about them? well, judging by his own work and things he says about them - a great many things. Something it seems he may admire but does not carry over into his own work or appreciations is "humanity". I think many of the film makers he promotes and endorses (and to some extent is influence by) were fundamentally humanitarians. Their films are shot through with calls to decency. sometimes this is done by underlining a lack of decency in the stories they depict but I think many of these films are "message" films. Even if the message of "once upon a time..." is as I've described - well, it's not really much of a message. So, while I like his films and find him very talented he strikes me as sort of like Lenny Kravetz when it seemed like he wanted to be Hendrix. the thing that was missing of course is that he wasn't Hendrix. I agree with every word of this.
|
|