Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2013
    Pretty sure I was the target audience, as a hipster with a wonky sense of nostalgia-based value. Didn't like it that much.

    In other news, I watched Looper yesterday and thought it was great. Good gore, decent pacing. Who gives a shit if the science sucks, time-travel science always sucks. How cool was it when that guy's fingers just start disappearing? Loved it. Also that TK kid was freaky-amazing. I want sequels; it's a cool universe.
  1.  (10949.2)
    Don't necessarily agree with everything TF says on Les Mis, but an interesting take on it. For me there was no clash between realism and theatricality, the entire thing looked super fake and arch, which I thought entirely fitting, it being a musical which requires a certain amount of oomph in presentation, since it's difficult to buy-in to the reality of a world where everyone is singing all of the time.
    • CommentTimeJan 27th 2013
    saw Django Unchained, i thought it was overlong, tonally random, BORING, offensive, arrogant.... urgh i HATED it. Waltz and DeCaprio are fantastic bu thats it... The constant N bomb dropping was horrible. it seemed like Tarantino reveled in the fact people would defend him for the setting so he just went to town and used it instead of his usual florid dialogue.
    i knew that
    as soon as King Schultz killed Candie and there was still NEARLY an hour left to go that everything this film had for me was over
    and i wanted to leave. but i never do in case i miss something amazing.

    I fully expect to be in the minority on this as i've been getting abuse about it ever since but i think Tarantino has really lost his way and everyone is too up his arse to see it.

    OH and i have the DREDD blu-ray and its a fantastic if flawed film, really my movie of 2012.
    • CommentAuthorflecky
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
    I've seen a few flicks recently:

    Django Unchained was just what I thought it would be like, and went on too long for me. Personally, I think Tarantino was at his best with Reservior Dogs. I agree with Alastair, though, that Waltz was good in it.

    The Hobbit - I had to go with the folks from rehab, and I went in cynical as hell. I really wasn't in the mood for dwarves and all that stuff, but after about 45 minutes I found myself enjoying it. Some dodgy CGI, though.

    Jack Reacher - The sort of film I wouldn't want to watch again. Tom Cruise trying to be a hard bastard, a plot that I couldn't be even bothered to really understand. Sadly, the best thing in it was a nice rack on Cruise's co-star.

    I finally got to see Chronicle on DVD, and I love that bastard. It cheered me up no-end.

    Tomorrow I'm gonna sneak out from here and see Zero Dark Thirty.
  2.  (10949.5)
    @magnulus I don't think I was expecting a kids movie per se, although somewhere at the back of my mind were the recent Gruffalo adaptations. Maybe something like that with higher production values. I think with the aesthetic I expected something (and apologies if this sounds like I'm up my own arse) more Scandinavian and thoughtful. I felt the monsters were just a little too human. At times i could close my eyes and the dialogue would be straight out of a shouty suburban family show.
    In the original book it always felt that Max took an otherworldly tint back with him, where as in Jonze's version it felt that the Wild Things absorbed Max's humanity.
    It was still a beautiful film and I thought the non Wild Things sections were very well shot too, I'll just watch it with the sound down next time :).
  3.  (10949.6)
    hated Django Unchained, way too long and no real character arc, he's a crack shot from the first time he holds a gun, and the terrible cameo, a Tarrantino movie way overhyped never happens

    Really enjoyed West of Memphis, it wasn't something i followed closely ( i watched paradise lost during my teens ) and was glued to my TV for the two and a half hours of this doc.

    'Hitchcock' was an ok movie, nothing spectacular just a fun popcorn movie, being a hitchcock fan helps.

    and The Hobbit is in need of an hour of trimming.
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
    I have absolutely no interest in watching Django. I had no interest in the Basterds either, but my friend made me watch it and I was bored and annoyed by it pretty quickly and promptly fell asleep. The only Tarantino film I've seen that I enjoyed was Pulp Fiction. Never got around to watching Reservoir Dogs (I know, I know) but will give that one a whirl.
  4.  (10949.8)
    I find Tarantino's films to be cowardly. They try to wrap themselves in pop culture references, violence and overwritten dialog so much that they never allows you to get close to the characters or even have empathy for them. The only exception is "Jackie Brown" and is the only Tarantino movie I like.
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
    I find many Tarantino movies are almost great conglomerations of different set pieces. There are aspects of what he does that I thoroughly enjoy, yet at times the plot and character development take a back seat to the spectacle. That said, there are pieces in most of his movies, that taken as a separate scene, would match up to 90% of anything else out there. There is also the fact to he clearly, obsessively loves what he does, and loves movies and the history of film, especially certain genre film. There is an almost love letter feeling or celebration of certain aspects of filmmaking in his work that many people, not being as enamored or fascinated by, just really don't care about. That is a piece of my opinion on the matter in general, though I have not yet had the chance to watch Django yet, or anything out in theaters lately, but I watched all his previous full length movies.

    Edited for poor, sleepy English.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2013
    I find Tarantino's films to be cowardly.

    That's a lovely way to put it.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2013
    Here's my take: Tarantino's best film is Jackie Brown. It has an arthouse sensibility, it is understated, and it moves slowly. It tanked at the box office despite critical adulation. So Tarantino has since been giving people what he thinks they want - schlock and exploitation movies dressed up in fancy pants. But look at elements of each film post-Jackie Brown and you can still see very real evidence of the early promise he showed as a serious film-maker - the opening scene of Basterds is better than anything in Schindler's List, in terms of conveying the banal, cold evil of the Nazis.

    Christoph Waltz' fantastic dialogue and performance in Django, which completely goes against the notion that Tarantino can only write dialogue with the words shit, fuck and motherfucker in. If we could have a whole movie of Tarantino directing a story where nothing much happens, but actors like Waltz are given long scenes in which to monologue and interact, he would be among the greatest film-makers working today. But it would tank at the box office. So he's fucking with us - giving us the schlock he thinks we crave, in the form of bloated sub-par kung fu, impossible revenge fantasies and '70s pastiche. I wanted tarantino to be Jim Jarmusch, not Roger Corman, if that makes any sense.

    Watch Reservoir Dogs, Magnulus - if nothing else, it is one of my favourite 'boiler room' movies, where the tension is created and sustained by the (mostly) single location, and the tension between the characters. It blows me away every time I see it because it's small, stage-y and all about acting and dialogue. For me, it's up there with Glen Garry Glen Ross and Twelve Angry Men as a stunning ensemble cast movie with a heavy theatrical vibe.

    For the record, I enjoyed Django, although i agree the movie was over when Waltz's character died, and Jamie Foxx's character was far too perfect. It could have done with losing a few scenes (the ones with Tarantino in) and the soundtrack was alternately horrific and hilarious. But it was very enjoyable overall, mainly because of Waltz, who is just utterly magnetic and watchable.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2013
    I would have loved Inglorious Basterds if it was about the girl from the start all the way through with nothing about the Basterds. Or Mike Myers.
  5.  (10949.13)
    "I wanted tarantino to be Jim Jarmusch, not Roger Corman, if that makes any sense."

    I sometimes wonder if Tarantino is going for Sam Peckinpah and only puts the violence of a Peckinpah film and forgets to put the humanity in it. Even as fucked up as "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" is, there is still a humanity to it.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2013
    I think that formulation - Peckinpah without the humanity - could describe an entire style and subgenre of movies from the last ten years. I could see the argument for Tarantino having at least something to do with influencing that.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2013
    yeah, I've increasingly felt that Tarantino's films are nothing more than love letters to cinema with lots of blood and schlock. Scorsese is also a director who creates cinematic love letters, but as has been mentioned before: Tarantino lacks Scorsese's humanity. Tarantino is basically Randy from Scream, except we kind of root for Randy because he's a buffoon. Tarantino is just really defensive and shitty whenever his motives or themes are questioned.
  6.  (10949.16)
    I respect everyone's opinions.

    I like his movies. I think they're good.

    They're big and bold and silly. Sometimes I'll sit down at home with a quiet drama and I'll really enjoy it.

    and other times, I want to see Lucy Liu get the top of her head cut off by a single slice of a samurai sword.

    I think the scene which is the definitive like it or not moment for Taratino's 'genre' works is the part in Kill Bill where he goes to see the sword maker in the Sushi shop, and instead of saying "Bill" he writes in the fog of the window with his finger. It's silly as all hell but I can't get over how much I love it.
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2013
    I don't mind big and bold and silly. I do mind Tarantino.
  7.  (10949.18)

  8.  (10949.19)
    My friend Niall has an interesting theory about Tarantino that's growing on me [but that I don't totally buy] so I'd like to discuss it in my favourite forum: a pub.

    Since I've no time to do that anytime soon, here'll do =p

    I jest, this is probably better than a pub because we wont all be getting progressively more aggressive about our point as the discussion goes on.

    Niall says:

    Tarantino hates violence.
    He's only shoving it down our throats to make us reexamine our cinematic tastes - e.g. the penultiate cinema
    mowing down
    scene in inglorious Basterds.

    I say, Haneke does this already [in Funny Games especially but also in his earlier Idiot-like stuff] better but it's possible that Tarantino does it too...

  9.  (10949.20)
    Tarrantino & Violence, my opinion is he enjoys violent cinema and his movies have become such a bunch of homages to those movies that it gets in the way of telling a story outside of the basic frame to hold it together. No humanity, and a bunch of set pieces that turn out to be anticlimactic.

    I regard True Romance as the best he was written, and Reservoir Dogs as the best he's directed, which in my opinion puts his best 20 years in the past, and the influence on Dogs of Rashoman is clear which is why i think that in the early-mid nineties he could get away with these very clear homages, which are nice when subtle ( the Vertigo shot in Europa, only lasts a few frames but is effective ). and looking east for influence and not have it be noticed straight away, in the modern age, rumour sites and blogs would have the comparisons in an article titled to get hits.

    And the shock is gone, i disliked the over use of the N word in Django, it didn't shock me i just disliked it, but not as much as i disliked the use of contemporary music.

    The movies of recent years that have stuck with me in the way Reservoir Dogs has are A Bittersweet Life and Oldboy/Lady Vengeance.