Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:55 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14997 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689 ... 750  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2867
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Well I didn't say anything that extreme on this particular thread recently(I reserve that kind of hate for films that truly deserve it, like Twilight and Your Highness), so I don't really see where all this hostility is coming from? :? Most of the time I avoid commenting on films everyone loves that I don't like.

Also whether one has "bad taste" in films is strictly a matter of opinion, not a fact. I could just as easily say that you have bad taste in films and that your opinion is garbage, but I don't.


There's no hostility meant. I'm just pointing out what I see as something of a contradiction. I don't buy for a second that most of the time you avoid commenting on films people love, however. I think there's years of evidence that would say otherwise all over this forum. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing.

And bad taste being a matter of opinion is exactly the point. Virutally everything involving what we think about movies is a matter of opinion, so it can't just be ok for someone contrarian to say things suck. Sometimes people should be willing to say the contrarian opinion is awful, which I think is much rarer than you giving your contrarian opinion. The way I see it, coming into a thread and bashing a movie people are lovingly talking about IS telling them they have bad taste, especially when the bashing is all that's offered up. It's obviously not as direct as saying it outright, but it functions the same.

I'll also point out that someone having bad (or good) taste and their opinion being garbage don't go hand in hand. How you explain that opinion is a much better barometer of how worthy an opinion is than just the opinion itself.
Except I wasn't bashing anything in this thread that people were lovingly talking about, I can't even remember the last time I did anything like that. I was just talking about how sometimes people are too eager to label almost everything as a Tarantino rip-off, which I think is a case of giving him too much credit. I can easily give detailed reasons why I don't care for Basterds or Django, but i'll save that for another thread.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:31 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6976
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Alright gentlemen. Since I precipitated this, I think I'll end it. No more discussion of Vexer. For now at least

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:38 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1438
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Blacklit ice skating rinks may look interesting, but it's hard to argue that 'Running Scared' is not a particularly poorly written movie. It's not just because of the bad dialogue, of which the copious use of swearwords is only a symptom, or because it is a copycat Tarantino movie, which tries to be clever about using extreme violence (without having Tarantino's touch) and fit in pop culture references (the Russian gangster's obsession with an abridged version of a John Wayne movie). If I remember it correctly, the movie ends with a sort of twist - or rather, a revelation - that completely invalidates any prior action by the protagonist, including putting his own family into mortal danger.


You mean without having fanboys to back him up?

I really don't see any Tarantino connection. Do Tarantino's fanboys claim that he invented the swear word? Perhaps that he invented the concept of a gangster as well? Or the concept of eccentric characters? Or perhaps Reservoir Dogs was the first movie ever made to feature R-rated violence? And if all those things are true, I take it Kramer was the first one after Tarantino to use those devices himself? Please. It baffles me that people intentionally play dumb by making this argument, as if you've never seen a violent movie in your life that wasn't directed by Tarantino.


Re: Tarantino, I'm reminded of a description I once read of Steven Bochco: More a radical rehabilitator than a revolutionary. That's an apt description of Tarantino as well. In much the same way Bocho reinvented old TV forms (the cop show, the legal drama) and made them new again, Tarantino has done the same with cinematic tropes.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:24 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 1999
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I do think Tarantino is revolutionary in the sense that he's built his entire M.O. on telling other people's stories. He's not the first and he's hardly the last, but he is the most prominent (and perhaps the most skilled) at making movies whose primary purpose is the reassembling of other movies. The reason this is revolutionary rather than rehabilitative is that rehabilitation is returning to something that happened previously. Tarantino and his generation begat a culture in cinema in which retelling older movies is the norm, rather than a subversive stylistic exercise.

Again, he's not the first, but the most famous figureheads of our cultural revolutions rarely are.

-

Batman Returns

I'd seen the original 1989 Batman theatrically a few years ago and was surprised at how poorly it holds up. Its effective combinations of sound and imagery on a purely primitive level couldn't save it from its mechanical plot, thin characters, or dim view of humanity.

I put Tim Burton's Batman behind me after that, confident that I had it pegged as a formative blunder in Burton's otherwise strong late '80s/early '90s period. But I watched The Dead Zone recently and was reminded of Christopher Walken's appearance in Batman Returns, which would make it my first ever Walken movie. (I saw Returns theatrically when I was seven.) I became curious: what might I make of Walken's performance now, as an adult with some perspective on his offbeat career? I decided to check it out.

Batman Returns has a running theme of heroes and villains as grotesques, more alike to one another than different. Batman, the Penguin, and Catwoman are all characters who seek to destroy their old identities and remake themselves according to their own will. One of the interesting things about this movie, and one of the ways in which it's superior to its predecessor, is how the movie explores this idea of self-determination as social aberration with its cast of characters. Each is a different permutation of the central idea. Batman, being the hero, is damned to be the least interesting of the three, but he's still far more interesting here than in the previous movie by virtue of having any interesting qualities at all. It helps that he has a love interest who is as competent and passionate as a love interest should be.

Which leaves Walken as the odd man out--and for good story-motivated reasons. The Max Schreck character is a society darling--a wealthy business owner who shows up for every charitable cause and rubs elbows in public with elected officials. There's a surprisingly satirical edge to this character who works everybody and turns every situation to his own advantage. There's nothing outcast, grotesque, or outwardly aberrant about him. Yet he has the blackest heart, the fewest redeeming qualities, the least humanity. The lesson here isn't terribly subtle, but it works for this lurid, expressionistic film.

I was also surprised at how well-staged the film is. Take the pre-credits sequence for example: a textbook case of good pictorial storytelling. There is no dialogue except for one perfunctory exchange of "Merry Christmas", strategically placed for maximum irony. In a superbly understated oner, a man in a mansion learns that his wife has given birth to something horrible. We're not told verbally or shown what he sees--we glean everything we need to know from the contents of one unbroken steadicam shot that stops short of the birthing chamber. Soon after, we flash forward to the child--again, unseen--killing the family cat. It's a horrific, melodramatic moment, but the screw is turned when the parents (played by old Burton friends Paul Reubens and Diane Salinger) look on clinically and simply drain their martinis. That is greater despair than any display of shock and histrionics ever could have been. Finally, we get the moment when they dump the child in the river--and the carriage, in a Hitchcockian twist, does not sink--and we see his Stygian journey through Gotham's cavernous storm drains as the credits roll. Tim Burton is not frequently talked about for his mechanical grasp of movie grammar, but the movie is littered with strongly told sequences such as this.

Burton fares less well in fashioning a cohesive narrative with a strong sense of cause and effect. The movie holds together well enough to introduce all the major players and set the stage for the rest of the drama, but things unravel from there. The individual parts, strong though they might be, grow less and less well-matched and the Penguin's diabolical plotting takes a few turns for the absurd. This film has a darkly fanciful tone, but its sense of whimsy eventually outgrows its sense of restraint. Batman Returns gains enough of its footing in time to remind us of the sympathetic nature of these characters in the end. It's just rough getting there.

12 codpieces out of Batnipples.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Last edited by Ken on Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:19 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1530
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Assault On Wall Street

"If I had me a gun, I'd find the bastards and shoot 'em on sight." - Bruce Springsteen

If I were to say Uwe Boll made a movie that was good, even necessary viewing, would anyone believe me? Such is the case with Assault On Wall Street, a film that is much better than its director's reputation suggests and captures the mood of America better than any studio product I can think of. Its plot is relatively simple: A man loses his savings, his job and his home during the financial crisis and decides to dish out a little justice. This involves killing the bankers and brokers who ruined his life.

Is this an indefensible story? Hardly. I believe that movies have a duty to capture the spirit of their times, and that even the crudest of films (sometimes especially the crudest of films) can capture this spirit. Assault On Wall Street channels the anger of millions of Americans so well that it is hard to view anything but giddy elation as our main character kills people in cold blood. Indefensible? Not at all. Assault on Wall Street is pro-violence, anti-capitalism, anti-business and full of righteous anger. It's a movie that for better or for worse, needed to be made.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:41 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2867
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
Assault On Wall Street

"If I had me a gun, I'd find the bastards and shoot 'em on sight." - Bruce Springsteen

If I were to say Uwe Boll made a movie that was good, even necessary viewing, would anyone believe me? Such is the case with Assault On Wall Street, a film that is much better than its director's reputation suggests and captures the mood of America better than any studio product I can think of. Its plot is relatively simple: A man loses his savings, his job and his home during the financial crisis and decides to dish out a little justice. This involves killing the bankers and brokers who ruined his life.

Is this an indefensible story? Hardly. I believe that movies have a duty to capture the spirit of their times, and that even the crudest of films (sometimes especially the crudest of films) can capture this spirit. Assault On Wall Street channels the anger of millions of Americans so well that it is hard to view anything but giddy elation as our main character kills people in cold blood. Indefensible? Not at all. Assault on Wall Street is pro-violence, anti-capitalism, anti-business and full of righteous anger. It's a movie that for better or for worse, needed to be made.
Agreed, that was a great film.

Some more great Boll films I think you would like are Rampage(even his most vocal detractors couldn't help but like it) 1968: Tunnel Rats and Attack on Darfur(be warned that this one gets pretty disturbing at times).


Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:44 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 540
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Huh? spent all day at work and a heated discussion took place? :D Anyway, not wanting to shake the tree, but I'll probably share some thoughts about Running Scared later. I have to sleep now after 13 hours of work.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:22 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1354
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
Anyway, I have never made the claims that you are addressing, but I concede that I haven't been precise about how 'Running Scared' is influenced by Tarantino movies, such as 'Reservoir Dogs' or 'Pulp Fiction' in particular. I've actually elaborated in a rather lengthy post, which, regrettably, didn't get posted, so excuse me for being very brief in my explanation on where I see Tarantino's influence.

Tarantino didn't invent quirky characters but he popularised that gangsters in gangster movies talk about stuff extraneous to the plot and make pop cultural references, such as discussing the name of hamburgers in continental Europe or the meaning of Madonna songs. Before Tarantino, a character such as the expatriate Russian gangster would probably not have had a John Wayne fetish to the extent of having a large tattoo of John Wayne on his back. Most certainly, he wouldn't have been a fan of a movie and having watched it hundreds of times without being aware that he has only seen an abridged version omitting the fact that John Wayne got shot at the end of the movie. This type of humour is also very Tarantino-esque.

Further, Tarantino has popularised the inclusion of transgressive acts, such as extreme or sexual violence, for thrills or laughs in gangster movies, which was largely the domain of horror movies or, more specifically, horror comedies. Unless it was a horror movie or the film would try to address the subject in a serious manner, a pre-1990 movie would be unlikely to feature a couple of child molester and child pornographers, at least not in a subplot which has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

Finally, I don't understand what a final plot twist has to do with symbolism and I'm afraid that I don't comprehend how it should be a good thing that characters are becoming less three-dimensional in the course of a movie, if that's what you're saying.


Extreme sexual violence? Have you seen Weekend, Straw Dogs, Clockwork Orange, El Topo, Deliverance, Long Goodbye, Body Double, Re-Animator? Only one of those is truly a horror film, and they all came long before Tarantino. Not to mention the fact that pretty much any Godard movie contains characters making blunt pop culture references and making small talk about random things that don't matter.

As for the last point, I think it's a good thing because I understand where Kramer is coming from. Not all movies have to base their conceits the same way in regards to character development or character sympathy.

But your voice has indeed been heard. Kramer himself has responded to "Tarantino copycat" accusations several times in interviews, and he's made his position quite plain.

Quote:
If I could pinpoint what drives Vexer's taste in movies, I think it would be that he enjoys unpretentious movies. Films that don't have delusions of grandeur, don't pretend to be anything greater than what they are, don't stand up and say "Look at me! I'm important! I'm Award-worthy! I'm cool!" He looks at movies from a fundamentally different perspective I suppose. He'll champion movies he feels are undervalued.


So you do understand...


Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:40 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 335
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, I have never made the claims that you are addressing, but I concede that I haven't been precise about how 'Running Scared' is influenced by Tarantino movies, such as 'Reservoir Dogs' or 'Pulp Fiction' in particular. I've actually elaborated in a rather lengthy post, which, regrettably, didn't get posted, so excuse me for being very brief in my explanation on where I see Tarantino's influence.

Tarantino didn't invent quirky characters but he popularised that gangsters in gangster movies talk about stuff extraneous to the plot and make pop cultural references, such as discussing the name of hamburgers in continental Europe or the meaning of Madonna songs. Before Tarantino, a character such as the expatriate Russian gangster would probably not have had a John Wayne fetish to the extent of having a large tattoo of John Wayne on his back. Most certainly, he wouldn't have been a fan of a movie and having watched it hundreds of times without being aware that he has only seen an abridged version omitting the fact that John Wayne got shot at the end of the movie. This type of humour is also very Tarantino-esque.

Further, Tarantino has popularised the inclusion of transgressive acts, such as extreme or sexual violence, for thrills or laughs in gangster movies, which was largely the domain of horror movies or, more specifically, horror comedies. Unless it was a horror movie or the film would try to address the subject in a serious manner, a pre-1990 movie would be unlikely to feature a couple of child molester and child pornographers, at least not in a subplot which has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

Finally, I don't understand what a final plot twist has to do with symbolism and I'm afraid that I don't comprehend how it should be a good thing that characters are becoming less three-dimensional in the course of a movie, if that's what you're saying.


Extreme sexual violence? Have you seen Weekend, Straw Dogs, Clockwork Orange, El Topo, Deliverance, Long Goodbye, Body Double, Re-Animator? Only one of those is truly a horror film, and they all came long before Tarantino. Not to mention the fact that pretty much any Godard movie contains characters making blunt pop culture references and making small talk about random things that don't matter.

As for the last point, I think it's a good thing because I understand where Kramer is coming from. Not all movies have to base their conceits the same way in regards to character development or character sympathy.

But your voice has indeed been heard. Kramer himself has responded to "Tarantino copycat" accusations several times in interviews, and he's made his position quite plain.


MGamesCook, it's nice discussing with you, but, again, you have overlooked the fact that I am talking how Tarantino popularised certain concepts in gangster movies. I have not stated that Tarantino was the first to include pop-cultural references or extreme violence in movies.

I have seen some of the movies, which you have mentioned, and am aware of the others. None of them are gangster movies. As far as I know these films, the sexual violence is central to the plot in al of them and not just an aside.

Godard, who has been a considerable influence on Tarantino in more tha one aspect, is an arthouse director who didn't make gangster movies for a mass audience.

The fact that the director of 'Running Scared' was forced to respond to "Tarantino copycat" accusations several times in interviews, as you have written, would suggest that it is not far off to recognise Tarantino's influence. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been asked about it several times by journalists would he?


Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:03 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2867
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Those interviews are exactly what I mean by giving Tarantino too much credit, just because a journalist says something dosen't make it true.


Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:13 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1354
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
MGamesCook, it's nice discussing with you, but, again, you have overlooked the fact that I am talking how Tarantino popularised certain concepts in gangster movies. I have not stated that Tarantino was the first to include pop-cultural references or extreme violence in movies.

I have seen some of the movies, which you have mentioned, and am aware of the others. None of them are gangster movies. As far as I know these films, the sexual violence is central to the plot in al of them and not just an aside.

Godard, who has been a considerable influence on Tarantino in more tha one aspect, is an arthouse director who didn't make gangster movies for a mass audience.

The fact that the director of 'Running Scared' was forced to respond to "Tarantino copycat" accusations several times in interviews, as you have written, would suggest that it is not far off to recognise Tarantino's influence. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been asked about it several times by journalists would he?


Perhaps not too far off, but his response has generally been to point out that Peckinpah, Walter Hill, Brian De Palma, Sergio Leone, and going back even further, Robert Aldrich, came first. It's not an issue of the quality of Tarantino's work. It's simply an issue of seeing the larger picture. QT may have done some new things, but he belongs to a much larger history which has been going on for many decades. Kramer, too, belongs to that history.

In terms of visual style, the gunfights in Running Scared are much closer to Peckinpah than to anything Tarantino has shot. The nighttime atmosphere and cartoony characters remind me more of The Warriors than of anything by Tarantino. As for the most terrifying scene of Running Scared, the kidnappers, I just don't see any connection to QT at all. Instead, I was painfully reminded of Todd Solondz and Happiness. Happiness is a great example of another indie director who touched on a deeper level of horror that wouldn't be found in any of Tarantino's work.

I could agree that Tarantino brought a certain kind of violence farther into the mainstream, but I think part of the reason his movies have been more popular is that they simply aren't as painful as some others. They don't shoot for horror. The violence in R-Dogs and Pulp Fiction simply doesn't bother me. By contrast, certain scenes in Running Scared and Pawn Shop Chronicles bothered me big time. Both offer some of the most disturbing material I've ever seen in a movie. I've heard about people who had to shut the movie off at a certain point. I think that's a major thing that Kramer brings to the table which is totally absent from QT: sheer horror. But even so, none of Kramer's movies can exactly be called horror films. Ditto to Happiness. The point being, it's reasonable to assume that some people who can stomach Tarantino will have a tougher time with the Kramer stuff. That alone separates them.

I also think Tarantino shies away from certain things even compared to directors who came before him. A lot of the 70s directors were accused of misogyny at various times, perhaps justifiably so, and Tarantino really hasn't tampered in that area. There's not much man-on-woman abuse with QT, and he seems to shy away from sex and nudity. My own mother loved Basterds, but walked away in anger and disgust about 20 minutes into Licence to Kill as I imagine she might for Kramer. All I'm saying is that I think Tarantino's popularity partly comes from the fact that he's more stomach-able than some others.


Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:48 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2106
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ken wrote:
I do think Tarantino is revolutionary in the sense that he's built his entire M.O. on telling other people's stories. He's not the first and he's hardly the last, but he is the most prominent (and perhaps the most skilled) at making movies whose primary purpose is the reassembling of other movies. The reason this is revolutionary rather than rehabilitative is that rehabilitation is returning to something that happened previously. Tarantino and his generation begat a culture in cinema in which retelling older movies is the norm, rather than a subversive stylistic exercise.

Again, he's not the first, but the most famous figureheads of our cultural revolutions rarely are.

-

Batman Returns

I'd seen the original 1989 Batman theatrically a few years ago and was surprised at how poorly it holds up. Its effective combinations of sound and imagery on a purely primitive level couldn't save it from its mechanical plot, thin characters, or dim view of humanity.

I put Tim Burton's Batman behind me after that, confident that I had it pegged as a formative blunder in Burton's otherwise strong late '80s/early '90s period. But I watched The Dead Zone recently and was reminded of his appearance in Batman Returns, which would make it my first ever Walken movie. (I saw Returns theatrically when I was seven.) I became curious: what might I make of Walken's performance now, as an adult with some perspective on his offbeat career? I decided to check it out.

Batman Returns has a running theme of heroes and villains as grotesques, more alike to one another than different. Batman, the Penguin, and Catwoman are all characters who seek to destroy their old identities and remake themselves according to their own will. One of the interesting things about this movie, and one of the ways in which it's superior to its predecessor, is how the movie explores this idea of self-determination as social aberration with its cast of characters. Each is a different permutation of the central idea. Batman, being the hero, is damned to be the least interesting of the three, but he's still far more interesting here than in the previous movie by virtue of having any interesting qualities at all. It helps that he has a love interest who is as competent and passionate as a love interest should be.

Which leaves Walken as the odd man out--and for good story-motivated reasons. The Max Schreck character is a society darling--a wealthy business owner who shows up for every charitable cause and rubs elbows in public with elected officials. There's a surprisingly satirical edge to this character who works everybody and turns every situation to his own advantage. There's nothing outcast, grotesque, or outwardly aberrant about him. Yet he has the blackest heart, the fewest redeeming qualities, the least humanity. The lesson here isn't terribly subtle, but it works for this lurid, expressionistic film.

I was also surprised at how well-staged the film is. Take the pre-credits sequence for example: a textbook case of good pictorial storytelling. There is no dialogue except for one perfunctory exchange of "Merry Christmas", strategically placed for maximum irony. In a superbly understated oner, a man in a mansion learns that his wife has given birth to something horrible. We're not told verbally or shown what he sees--we glean everything we need to know from the contents of one unbroken steadicam shot that stops short of the birthing chamber. Soon after, we flash forward to the child--again, unseen--killing the family cat. It's a horrific, melodramatic moment, but the screw is turned when the parents (played by old Burton friends Paul Reubens and Diane Salinger) look on clinically and simply drain their martinis. That is greater despair than any display of shock and histrionics ever could have been. Finally, we get the moment when they dump the child in the river--and the carriage, in a Hitchcockian twist, does not sink--and we see his Stygian journey through Gotham's cavernous storm drains as the credits roll. Tim Burton is not frequently talked about for his mechanical grasp of movie grammar, but the movie is littered with strongly told sequences such as this.

Burton fares less well in fashioning a cohesive narrative with a strong sense of cause and effect. The movie holds together well enough to introduce all the major players and set the stage for the rest of the drama, but things unravel from there. The individual parts, strong though they might be, grow less and less well-matched and the Penguin's diabolical plotting takes a few turns for the absurd. This film has a darkly fanciful tone, but its sense of whimsy eventually outgrows its sense of restraint. Batman Returns gains enough of its footing in time to remind us of the sympathetic nature of these characters in the end. It's just rough getting there.

12 codpieces out of Batnipples.


Good write-up.

I especially agree with the bit I've emboldened. Despite aiming to be far more character driven than Batman 1989, Returns still suffers the same issues. Namely that creating an intriguing universe isn't enough alone to create a good film.

_________________
The question, RAYMOND ... is what.. did you want.. to be?


Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:53 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1054
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Maybe inspired from watching Jupiter Ascending trailer, I took a break from my reading for finals and decided to skimp through my favorite scenes from Cloud Atlas... and ended up watching the whole thing all the way through again. Damn, I love this movie. The editing in the last act is really breathtaking. I had the mental image of a sweating conductor straining to keep a gigantic orchestra band in play, and really succeeded in the end.


Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:57 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2106
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Alright gentlemen. Since I precipitated this, I think I'll end it. No more discussion of Vexer. For now at least



I disagree with many of his opinions, but admire his willingness to slaughter a few sacred cows.

_________________
The question, RAYMOND ... is what.. did you want.. to be?


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:02 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 1999
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I have to wonder, is there anyone here who's been particularly unwilling to slaughter the occasional sacred cow?

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:05 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2106
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ken wrote:
I have to wonder, is there anyone here who's been particularly unwilling to slaughter the occasional sacred cow?


True dat

_________________
The question, RAYMOND ... is what.. did you want.. to be?


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:07 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2106
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
MGamesCook, it's nice discussing with you, but, again, you have overlooked the fact that I am talking how Tarantino popularised certain concepts in gangster movies. I have not stated that Tarantino was the first to include pop-cultural references or extreme violence in movies.

I have seen some of the movies, which you have mentioned, and am aware of the others. None of them are gangster movies. As far as I know these films, the sexual violence is central to the plot in al of them and not just an aside.

Godard, who has been a considerable influence on Tarantino in more tha one aspect, is an arthouse director who didn't make gangster movies for a mass audience.

The fact that the director of 'Running Scared' was forced to respond to "Tarantino copycat" accusations several times in interviews, as you have written, would suggest that it is not far off to recognise Tarantino's influence. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been asked about it several times by journalists would he?


. The violence in R-Dogs and Pulp Fiction simply doesn't bother me.


The violence in Pulp Fiction is heavily offset though. I mean, blowing Marv's head off was just a hour long inconvenience.

_________________
The question, RAYMOND ... is what.. did you want.. to be?


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:10 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2106
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Anyway, my problem with Tarantino is that (like many a rock band and even sportsmen) he is danger of becoming a caricature of himself.

I liked Basterds for the fact that it has some great scenes in it, but watching Django, it occurred to me that a rot may have been in initiated with the introduction of ethnic-revenge porn that he seems to be using as some kind of formula.

For me this represents a step in the wrong direction. It's a dumb trope for start. Way beneath him. He got away with Basterds because WWII is subject to countless alternative histories, but Django represents him getting the wrong end of the stick IMO.

_________________
The question, RAYMOND ... is what.. did you want.. to be?


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:17 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1354
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
NotHughGrant wrote:
Anyway, my problem with Tarantino is that (like many a rock band and even sportsmen) he is danger of becoming a caricature of himself.

I liked Basterds for the fact that it has some great scenes in it, but watching Django, it occurred to me that a rot may have been in initiated with the introduction of ethnic-revenge porn that he seems to be using as some kind of formula.

For me this represents a step in the wrong direction. It's a dumb trope for start. Way beneath him. He got away with Basterds because WWII is subject to countless alternative histories, but Django represents him getting the wrong end of the stick IMO.


I think the issue is trying to start a serious conversation about slavery, as Tarantino claims to have desired in interviews. Django does, at times, have an atmosphere of horror which does on some level seem to evoke the horror of slavery. But that's as far as it goes. On a more literal level, it's just a fantasy so to bring it into a serious slavery discussion would just be inappropriate. And I find that it's a problematic movie because it genuinely conjurs up some of the emotions people feel about slavery. But when you get down to the details, there's just nothing to discuss because it's not realistic. And I do think he was reaching here because slavery and WWII/holocaust stuff are so insanely different, literally and emotionally.


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:46 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 1999
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
QT goes through phases. For a while, he had an obsession with crime movies, then it was grindhouse movies, and now it's alt-historical movies. Just give him time and he'll move onto ancient Mediterranean fresco movies or whatever.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:57 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14997 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689 ... 750  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr