#81  
Old 01-06-2013, 12:02 AM
Updated my list of Tarantino's films from worst to best after seeing all of them again recently. (TarantinoXX box set fucking rules by the way, and is a must own)

Anyways,

7. Death Proof - 3/5
6. Inglourious Basterds - 3.5/5
5. Reservoir Dogs - 4/5
4. Django Unchained - 4/5
3. Kill Bill - 4.5/5
2. Jackie Brown - 5/5
1. Pulp Fiction - 5/5

If you have some time on your hands, and would like to know the WHY behind the order, please click here.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-06-2013, 05:02 AM
I dunno. I may have expected a lot from the film judging from your comments especially the whole 'bag' scene. Not sure why Jonah Hill was even in the film, didn't feel he had a punchline and the whole 'I can't see' may have tickled a funny bone but to call it the funniest scene of the year? Not for me.

Heard good comments on Don Johnson and while I enjoyed his turn, I didn't really think enough of it to feel it deserved a comment, especially compared with the performances of others. I really dug Franco Nero's cameo and Leonardo DiCaprio was complete and utter gold in the film - from his introduction to his monologue right to the very end, he owned the screen whenever he was on. Never once thought he was overacting and felt that he portrayed a very nice nuance between wimp and menace. Just when you thought he was all talk, he scares the shit out of you. Beside Leo was Jackson and I laughed at the scene in the dinner table when Sam Jackson was repeating whatever Leo uttered. That was brilliant.

Christoph Waltz was brilliant as well. Think Hans Landa but this time with a heart of gold. Whole movie would have fallen apart had it relied on Jamie Foxx who was good but nowhere good enough to hold the film. In fact, I think some would agree that right after
Spoiler:
we don't see Waltz, we stopped caring and thought the ending could be faster.

The Tarantino scene was funny but damn was it fucking jarring to see him appear. His death may have been a funny punchline but don't think it was worth it to have us taken out of the film
and with Quentin, he sometimes overindulge and it shows here. I know I am in the minority in not giving a shit about Django's wife but I just didn't.

All in all, I liked it enough but could have been trimmed, especially at the end. Generous 4/5.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:30 AM
***MILD SPOILERS***

It's interesting to me that amidst the talk of performance, funny scenes, dialogue, music selection, etc. more people aren't talking about the anger, the power, the strong racial commentary, and the sense of empowerment this film has the ability to instill. I think QT is dealing with perhaps the most important material he ever has here in a way few have ever had the balls to do before.

And none of it would work if not for the last 20 minutes in which the film's theme becomes prevalent and relevant. I've heard so many people say (far beyond just this message board) that the film should have ended 20 minutes earlier but then it wouldn't have been half the film it is. The entire point of this piece (beyond the wild entertainment value) is glued together and hit home in the ending. If not for them then Django doesn't complete his arc and QT doesn't get to have his say, and then the film isn't much of anything at all. Each note seems perfectly calculated in order to finally turn Django into the man he is, who outsmarts more than outguns, who out confidences more than outtalks, and who instills a sense of hope and that awesome smile on the face of that guy in the cage. And the fact that he ends up having to "fight" Stephen, long after Candie is gone, is the final comment in the coffin and it makes this truly disgusting (in a good way) and a very potent piece of American satire. Stephen is a brilliant character and a scathing work of social commentary.

Also, Foxx keeps getting trashed or left aside but it's incredibly difficult to hold the screen alongside such theatrical and bold performances when you are playing a reserved, quiet character. I think Foxx is far more impressive here than he is getting credit for but he's acting with quiet and subtlety and confidence as opposed to what others in the film are doing.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-06-2013, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
***MILD SPOILERS***
And none of it would work if not for the last 20 minutes in which the film's theme becomes prevalent and relevant. I've heard so many people say (far beyond just this message board) that the film should have ended 20 minutes earlier but then it wouldn't have been half the film it is. The entire point of this piece (beyond the wild entertainment value) is glued together and hit home in the ending. If not for them then Django doesn't complete his arc and QT doesn't get to have his say, and then the film isn't much of anything at all. Each note seems perfectly calculated in order to finally turn Django into the man he is, who outsmarts more than outguns, who out confidences more than outtalks, and who instills a sense of hope and that awesome smile on the face of that guy in the cage. And the fact that he ends up having to "fight" Stephen, long after Candie is gone, is the final comment in the coffin and it makes this truly disgusting (in a good way) and a very potent piece of American satire. Stephen is a brilliant character and a scathing work of social commentary.
Agreed, that's why I say that the film definitely should NOT have ended 20 minutes earlier, but the last 20 minutes shouldn't have been as rushed. This is what, personally, took me out of it a bit. Tarantino's terrible acting, the quickness of the editing,

Spoiler:

Especially in the scene where Django just walks in and shoots everyone after saying "D'Artangan bitches!" - that's a certain kind of tone that doesn't make any sense with anything else in the film


That extended edition....how I hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Also, Foxx keeps getting trashed or left aside but it's incredibly difficult to hold the screen alongside such theatrical and bold performances when you are playing a reserved, quiet character. I think Foxx is far more impressive here than he is getting credit for but he's acting with quiet and subtlety and confidence as opposed to what others in the film are doing.
Yeah, on second viewing you notice Foxx's performances a bit more and I have a feeling that soon enough after the film is seen a few more times by everyone, Foxx's performance will get the credit it deserves. Definitely not as showy as the other three, but for what it is it's really great.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-06-2013, 04:02 PM
Just saw this last night and I thought it was overall, a pretty good film. The first 45 min or so are the most enjoyable, and then the film hits some of the pacing issues that Inglorious Basterds had. To the film's defense though, you can't really fault it too much for the pacing because cutting the film to achieve a better flow would eliminate some unnecessary, but extremely entertaining scenes, (the scene with the bag masks).

The film has something in common with the recently released Skyfall in that the main villain doesn't show up until well into the film. I still haven't decided if this hurts either film, but I think if both villains had a bit more screen time it probably would have benefited them, (seeing as each villain is pretty effective).

Also, it seems like Tarantino should have mellowed out by now with age and eased up with the abundance of blood in the gunfights, (which approaches the ridiculous by the end of the film). However, maybe that's just part of what makes Tarantino, well...Tarantino. Afterall, would Cronenberg be the director he is if he suddenly just dropped all the blood and violence in his films?

Overall, it's a good film with a great cast, a good story, and good characters. Haven't fully decided on it yet, but it stands somewhere around a 7 or 8/10 for me right now.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-06-2013, 08:06 PM
Django has such a great premise, there so much fertile territory here for a classic, I still can't get my mind around how this fell flat. Yes I said flat and I am a little disappointed that QT did not deliver another classic here. I will agree this is his best since Pulp but it is nowhere near as good as Pulp or Dogs. Perhaps because QT made two instant classics, two of the best films of the past 20 years, right out the gate, everything else he does is destined to be compared to those two films and never reach that level of greatness again.

But even beyond that, even beyond the lofty expectations we have for QT movies, this really does feel sub par compared to Pulp. Yes Waltz delivers some zingers, yes Dicaprio plays a great zany, yes Sam Jackson is an excellent sleazeball, yes Don Johnson was terrific as an idiotic racist, in fact the entire cast was solid and all seemed to enjoy themselves. The feel and tone of the film was very good as well. Never once did I feel taken out of it by a locale, costume, set piece, or even the music. And as I stated above, this is a great story.

So why do I feel like it didn't knock the ball out the park? I am sure the expectations have something to do with it but I also feel QT may be unable to capture lightning in a bottle again. He did it twice which is very difficult. He did it with his first two movies which is almost unheard of. And ever since he can't seem to quite hit that high again.

Not a complete loss though because even when he misses by a bit it is still better than 90% of the crap coming out of Hollywood. Definitely a good movie and I can't imagine someone walking out of the theater feeling they wasted money. It's just not the QT classic we have all been hoping for since 1994. 7/10 for me.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-06-2013, 08:39 PM
Was everything I hoped it would be. Awesome movie.

Spoiler:
Right after Tarantino blew up, and Django heading back to Candy Land is where I would have ended it. He rides off, the epic music plays, and that's a wrap. I would have figured he rode back and did everything we saw anyway, and don't feel like showing him finally getting his wife and killing the rest of bad guys was needed.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-06-2013, 09:00 PM
I guess the one thing we'll have to disagree on Rusty is that I have preferred much of QT's post Pulp Fiction output to Reservoir Dogs, which is pretty good but one of my least favorite QT films.

Expectations can be a bitch, though, and potentially ruin anyone's experience. I always say try to put them aside and just enjoy (or not) what's on screen. Easier said then done.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-06-2013, 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
I guess the one thing we'll have to disagree on Rusty is that I have preferred much of QT's post Pulp Fiction output to Reservoir Dogs, which is pretty good but one of my least favorite QT films.

Expectations can be a bitch, though, and potentially ruin anyone's experience. I always say try to put them aside and just enjoy (or not) what's on screen. Easier said then done.
Yeah, I agree that Reservoir Dogs is probably one of his weakest films. It's not bad for a start, but IMO everything else he's done is just miles above it in almost every aspect. That's just another way of saying he's improved with time.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-06-2013, 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustysyringe View Post
It's just not the QT classic I have .. been hoping for since 1994. 7/10 for me.
Fixed.

QT did make two classics back-to-back, but it wasn't Dogs and Pulp. It was Pulp and Jackie Brown. (Reservoir Dogs is still an excellent film and has some of the best scenes he's ever done)

If you keep thinking that Tarantino is gonna go back to topping his 90s style of filmmaking, you'll be disappointed every time.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Fixed.

QT did make two classics back-to-back, but it wasn't Dogs and Pulp. It was Pulp and Jackie Brown. (Reservoir Dogs is still an excellent film and has some of the best scenes he's ever done)

If you keep thinking that Tarantino is gonna go back to topping his 90s style of filmmaking, you'll be disappointed every time.
Amen. Jackie Brown is excellent, surprisingly mature filmmaking that I don't think gets as much respect as it deserves. And of course Pulp goes without saying.

But you are absolutely right. He will be disappointed every time because he's expecting something that's just not going to happen again. QT has grown, evolved, and changed as a filmmaker. You can't live in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:09 AM
I'm not exactly certain what "mature" means, but whatever it means Jackie Brown was definitely his most mature film. Though Pulp Fiction is obviously and undeniably his most compelling, fun, compulsively watchable, etc.

I find Tarantino's filmography very weird though. It is very clear to me that you need to categorize "Early Tarantino" with his series of 90s crime films (half including TR/NBK) and "Later Tarantino" with his basically self-indulgent genre mashups as almost completely separate entities. As far as Later Tarantino goes I think this was probably the best, most interesting, most finely crafted, etc. but I'd take the Early over Later Tarantino in a second. I just hope he can shift towards a third act; something different. Django was great, but it seems to me the absolute peak of the possibilities of Later Tarantino.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-07-2013, 03:24 AM

Tarantino made a worthy come back after Kill Bill. I offer an 8.6 out of 10 for this one.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-07-2013, 05:57 AM
Fun, funny, violent, and pretty much everything else you'd expect from a Quentin Tarantino movie. There's the great characters that make the movie that much more fun to watch; there's the smart dialogue which incorporates itself very well into the movie and makes the characters that much more fun; and there's the great interplay between the characters that make each scene interesting and helps move the plot along.

There were a few things about this movie that I thought stood out: this movie was a little more difficult for me to watch and I attribute the topic of slavery most of all. The movie holds little back when it shows the horrors of slavery (I really can't account to how accurate the events were and if they were really done, but it wouldn't surprise me). Another thing that stood out was Leonardo DiCaprio; every movie needs a good villain and DiCaprio is a great villain. He's racist to the core, proud of his heritage, and a smart businessman. He's also quite ruthless and has a great soliloquy towards the end of the movie when he's confronting Django and Schultz. Another thing I enjoyed was how stupid several of the racist Southerners were made out to be (excluding a few); there's a great scene where the KKK (or an early version of the ignorant group) is prepping a raid and they're complaining about the hoods they're wearing.

If you're a fan of Tarantino's, I don't see how you couldn't enjoy Django Unchained. I wouldn't say it's his best film, but you can definitely tell it's a QT movie. It has memorable characters, violent and bloody action scenes, and great quotes. Any Tarantino fan should have no problem enjoying it.

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-07-2013, 04:46 PM
Watching it a second time made me understand more of what QT was attempting, and it helped since I had to shake off the whole 'Inglourious Basterds for slavery' mindset that I had going in the first time. IB was a cathartic what if scenario for how WW2 ended, DU has a lot more heavy lifting to do since the absolute brutality of slavery-era USA isn't something that gets shown too often.

So we get the first half of the film where Django and King do their buddy movie routine, and then (as ilovemovies pointed out) there's a huge tonal shift with the Mandingo fighting scene and Candie's introduction. Of course that's the point because now Django/Schultz are diving head first into the ugliness of slavery when they spent the first half skirting around it.

And through a literal voyage/trip the transition into the 'hellfire' of slavery is completed. And it's why Schultz cracks so early since, as Django says, he's not used to Americans. I originally didn't like the last part since I think Django is a pretty weak protagonist (something I still think is a major issue for the movie) but it's where Django finally becomes a free man (also important is how Stephen knows that the real horror of slavery is how dehumanizing it is which is why he was so insistent on it being Django's punishment).

I'm rambling here but my point is that DU sums up what's so fascinating about Tarantino which is how he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to make a film about a horrific period in America's history and show the brutality of that era, but at the same time he can throw in spaghetti western references and huge ridiculous squibs if he feels like it. It's a high wire act that he amazingly succeeds at for the most part, and touches like selectively choosing the level of gore in certain sequences manage to work without being distracting in any way. DU isn't my favourite Tarantino movie but it might be one of his most accomplished ones. I know people on here like myself (Quentin is another one) have taken issue with QT not maturing as a filmmaker but I've seen huge developments with this and IB.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-07-2013, 07:19 PM
Points for anyone who knows where the Wilhelm scream in Django was.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-07-2013, 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Points for anyone who knows where the Wilhelm scream in Django was.
In the town scene in the beginning wasn't it? Sheriff's fate?

Or I also think it was one of the brother's who died in the grass.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
In the town scene in the beginning wasn't it? Sheriff's fate?

Or I also think it was one of the brother's who died in the grass.
Sorry none of those.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Points for anyone who knows where the Wilhelm scream in Django was.
Just heard it for the first time..

Spoiler:
is it when Bill Crash gets shot in the balls?


Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
Watching it a second time made me understand more of what QT was attempting, and it helped since I had to shake off the whole 'Inglourious Basterds for slavery' mindset that I had going in the first time. IB was a cathartic what if scenario for how WW2 ended, DU has a lot more heavy lifting to do since the absolute brutality of slavery-era USA isn't something that gets shown too often.

So we get the first half of the film where Django and King do their buddy movie routine, and then (as ilovemovies pointed out) there's a huge tonal shift with the Mandingo fighting scene and Candie's introduction. Of course that's the point because now Django/Schultz are diving head first into the ugliness of slavery when they spent the first half skirting around it.

And through a literal voyage/trip the transition into the 'hellfire' of slavery is completed. And it's why Schultz cracks so early since, as Django says, he's not used to Americans. I originally didn't like the last part since I think Django is a pretty weak protagonist (something I still think is a major issue for the movie) but it's where Django finally becomes a free man (also important is how Stephen knows that the real horror of slavery is how dehumanizing it is which is why he was so insistent on it being Django's punishment).

I'm rambling here but my point is that DU sums up what's so fascinating about Tarantino which is how he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to make a film about a horrific period in America's history and show the brutality of that era, but at the same time he can throw in spaghetti western references and huge ridiculous squibs if he feels like it. It's a high wire act that he amazingly succeeds at for the most part, and touches like selectively choosing the level of gore in certain sequences manage to work without being distracting in any way. DU isn't my favourite Tarantino movie but it might be one of his most accomplished ones. I know people on here like myself (Quentin is another one) have taken issue with QT not maturing as a filmmaker but I've seen huge developments with this and IB.
Yeah I've been one of those people and it all started with Death Proof, only because I find Kill Bill to be so insanely enjoyable to watch (plus on repeat viewings, the second part is full of emotional heavy lifting and depth). I guess where we might disagree on is with IB, which I found to be too rushed and too full of brilliant ideas for its own good (or at least, for one movie). Time might change that because it's still immensely enjoyable but I find that there's a lot of style and not as much substance in IB.

I think he's improved a lot with Django. And it's interesting what Gordon says about the "Later Tarantino". Considering that the guy wants to retire at the age of 60 (11 years from now) how many films does he still have left in him? 3, maybe 4 if we're lucky? I think he'll definitely be changing it up a bit and doing something a little more subdued and deep for the final phase of his career.

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 01-08-2013 at 09:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-08-2013, 11:55 PM
Sorry nope not that scene either.

I love this track btw,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhlVBpEnjig
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-09-2013, 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Reservoir Dogs is probably one of his weakest films. It's not bad for a start, but IMO everything else he's done is just miles above it in almost every aspect. That's just another way of saying he's improved with time.
Fucking blasphemy. I think you guys must have vaginas or something. I just re-watched it (currently available on Netflix streaming FYI) and its 100x the movie Django or anything else QT has done since Pulp is. Any MAN who say Dogs isn't a classic just ain't right in the head. JMTC
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-09-2013, 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Sorry nope not that scene either.

I love this track btw,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhlVBpEnjig
It's the raid scene, pretty sure I heard it when someone got blown up and/or shot off their horse
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-09-2013, 02:05 AM
Yep that's it the raid scene!
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-09-2013, 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
It's the raid scene, pretty sure I heard it when someone got blown up and/or shot off their horse
Nice!
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-09-2013, 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustysyringe View Post
Fucking blasphemy. I think you guys must have vaginas or something. I just re-watched it (currently available on Netflix streaming FYI) and its 100x the movie Django or anything else QT has done since Pulp is. Any MAN who say Dogs isn't a classic just ain't right in the head. JMTC
You want some cheese with that whine?

But yeah, forgive me for not taking your word as gospel...
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-09-2013, 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustysyringe View Post
Fucking blasphemy. I think you guys must have vaginas or something. I just re-watched it (currently available on Netflix streaming FYI) and its 100x the movie Django or anything else QT has done since Pulp is. Any MAN who say Dogs isn't a classic just ain't right in the head. JMTC
Well if you would be so kind as to borrow your eyeballs...

I do see what you're getting at, though. He turned a corner after Jackie Brown (my most-liked) and nothing he's churned out has been half as good, although Basterds was OK. I'd say his formula is hackneyed and he needs a writing partner or to adapt another pulp novel.

Last edited by viceus; 01-09-2013 at 10:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-10-2013, 11:17 AM
Its really interesting reading peoples opinions on Tarantinos other films. I know I've read a few guys on here that think Jackie Brown is his 2nd best behind Pulp. Crazy to think that as big a nerd that I am with QT, I think Jackie Brown is the most boring film I've ever watched,I literally can say theres 2 scenes where something happens in the 2 hr 30 min film.
-chris tuckers death which is amazingly shot and done
-the last 15 minutes, which IMO are not nearly satisfying enough for sticking with the film for so long.

I always thought its one of those films where the plot takes FOREVER to show its hand, and it just meanders back and forth for like 100 minutes before anything is even delved into. But I do agree its still a decent movie. Its well done in alot of aspects, but I think is missing that raw tension/energy that every other Tarantino film posesses. Just my opinion.

I'd be interested in reading some of you Jackie Brown fans thoughts tho on why you'd regard it one of his best.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-10-2013, 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Sorry nope not that scene either.

I love this track btw,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhlVBpEnjig
DJANGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

i love the original soundtrack. Thinking back theres so much more that I love about the film
-the bar lantern swinging and hitting the bartender in the head when he sees Django and Schultz
-the frequent zooms of tarantinos camera are awesome, in the opening night scene, when the two whites are escorting Django and the other slaves, right when the white sees Schultz wagon, he goes "Woah" to the horse, and the camera zooms in with a WHOOSH. i eat that shit up, love it.
-When dicaprio stares into Djangos face while the man is eaten by dogs, fucking scary.
-Watching Schultz various reactions to Candies exploits (the 1st madingo fight, the dogs, his reaction to candies sister about Hilde "not every nigga speaks german" hes insulted by this) are simply foreshadowing his imminent blow-up, when enough is enough and he decides to just shoot this motherfucker.
-the ending is rushed, no doubt.
-LOVE the smile on the slaves face after Django gets the dynamite, and rides off on a white horse. The inspiration of hope for the slaves, beautiful.
-indeed the wilhelm scream happens right after the wagon blows up, and the riders are running away in dissaray. one dude falls off his horse and you can barely hear it.
-the birthday cake scene is oddly placed, when the music/violins dips down slowly, showing Django and Schultz taking bodies to the lawman, who tells them to come in and have some birthday cake. The scene inexplicably ends after Schultz and Django walk into the cabin
-the wife of Django is really not needed much characterization wise, but she couldve had some more screen time, shes one note the entire film (maybe the point?)
-that candyland shootout is one of the coolest gunfights ive ever seen. the blood is like John Woo on acid. fantastic 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
-the scene with Billy Crash holding Djangos dick is not needed, and couldve been cut. thats a tad much. Crash as a character couldve been cool but hes not very colorful or personalized. Stephen couldve just walked in and talked to him.
-"hell i cant think of stayin two weeks in Boston" his lawyer coughing and laughing, love it.

this is a great american film and one thats destiend to become at least notable down the line in modern westerns. like others have stated, this kind of movie is not made anymore in Hollywood
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-10-2013, 12:33 PM
I can't wait for this thread to die. This movie is so goddamned overrated on here. You'd think some of the schmoes on here got some sort of payola. It's entertaining, somewhat and has its moments; but Tarantino is definitely losing his touch. Another reason I'm reluctant to give Cosmopolis a watch. Trusted sources have sworn me off it. Cronenberg and Tarantino are my favorite directors working today; and after this disappointment, that will leave nobody left whose works I care to anticipate.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
I'm rambling here but my point is that DU sums up what's so fascinating about Tarantino which is how he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to make a film about a horrific period in America's history and show the brutality of that era, but at the same time he can throw in spaghetti western references and huge ridiculous squibs if he feels like it. It's a high wire act that he amazingly succeeds at for the most part, and touches like selectively choosing the level of gore in certain sequences manage to work without being distracting in any way. DU isn't my favourite Tarantino movie but it might be one of his most accomplished ones. I know people on here like myself (Quentin is another one) have taken issue with QT not maturing as a filmmaker but I've seen huge developments with this and IB.
Great points. This is why I think Spike Lee, whose work I am a fan of, is off base in his criticisms. He keeps tweeting about how it's disrespectful, making slavery look cool, and comparable to Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will. I can see how one might be upset that Tarantino is using the spaghetti western genre to tell a story about slavery, but I thought that the way Tarantino did it was very intelligent and respectful and the spaghetti western aspects of it benefit the satirical tone of the first half. The comparison to Birth of a Nation is absolutely asinine, when Birth of a Nation is criticized within this very film. The bag scene is a giant middle finger to that film (which Tarantino has publicly criticized many times) and John Ford (who played a Klan member in Birth of a Nation). I also don't see how it makes slavery look cool. Maybe the Rick Ross and Tupac songs are a bit much, but the Rick Ross song in particular has a western tone and fits perfectly with the scene that it plays over. It's hardly "cool" to see people whipped, branded, pitted against each other to the death, eaten by dogs, put in a hot box, verbally destroyed, and hung upside down with the possibility of castration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
I can't wait for this thread to die. This movie is so goddamned overrated on here. You'd think some of the schmoes on here got some sort of payola. It's entertaining, somewhat and has its moments; but Tarantino is definitely losing his touch.
If the thread is such an inconvenience to you, then you can choose to ignore it. It's not like the film hasn't been criticized. Many have had reservations, but instead of saying "Let's close it down cause I don't like the movie as much as everyone else!" they explain what worked for them and what didn't and discussion follows. That's what most people are here for.

Last edited by Bourne101; 01-10-2013 at 01:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
If the thread is such an inconvenience to you, then you can choose to ignore it. It's not like the film hasn't been criticized. Many have had reservations, but instead of saying "Let's close it down cause I don't like the movie as much as everyone else!" they explain what worked for them and what didn't and discussion follows. That's what most people are here for.
Talk about a misquote.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
Talk about a misquote.
Because

"I can't wait for this thread to die. This movie is so goddamned overrated on here."

is so drastically different.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Because

"I can't wait for this thread to die. This movie is so goddamned overrated on here."

is so drastically different.
It is. I don't expect it to die considering the zeal of so many on here for this flick. I just can't wait until it does.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
I just can't wait until it does.
Like I said, if the thread is such an inconvenience to you, then you can choose to ignore it. It just seems like a silly thing to say. I wasn't that big on The Dark Knight Rises, but I'm not waiting for that thread to die. People are enjoying discussing it.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Like I said, if the thread is such an inconvenience to you, then you can choose to ignore it. It just seems like a silly thing to say. I wasn't that big on The Dark Knight Rises, but I'm not waiting for that thread to die. People are enjoying discussing it.
Like you conveyed, this forum is for discussion and stating opinions. I felt compelled to state mine. If you disagree with me, your disagreement is noted.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
Like you conveyed, this forum is for discussion and stating opinions. I felt compelled to state mine. If you disagree with me, your disagreement is noted.
Your opinion is far from the norm, so you're going to catch some flak. You also are god awful at presenting your opinion in a way that is digestible. Yes, you are allowed to say what you want, I suppose, but as a former mod of this site I have to say if Bourne wanted to eviscerate you I would let me do so. Maybe that's why i'm a former mod.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
Your opinion is far from the norm, so you're going to catch some flak. You also are god awful at presenting your opinion in a way that is digestible. Yes, you are allowed to say what you want, I suppose, but as a former mod of this site I have to say if Bourne wanted to eviscerate you I would let me do so. Maybe that's why i'm a former mod.
Probably. And my opinions and I myself am (gladly) far from the norm and can handle any flack thrown my way. I'm like O.J.'s glove: I don't fit in anywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
Probably. And my opinions and I myself am (gladly) far from the norm and can handle any flack thrown my way. I'm like O.J.'s glove: I don't fit in anywhere.
Then do yo thang. Just don't be surprised when people react.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:12 PM
Too bad that its nominated for best picture, best screenplay, and like 3 other nods. Its still overrated.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:42 PM
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump