Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 09-24-2012, 11:02 PM
I disagree as far as the Kill Bill movies are concerned. I absolutely love both Kill Bill movies. Volume 1 is pure action filmmaking and but volume 2 adds depth and character development that makes you appreciate volume 1 even more.
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 09-24-2012, 11:19 PM
You're right. There's character development and some depth in Vol.2 (his best movie after JB) but we're still talking about a movie based on an assassination squad made up of hot women and Michael Madsen with snake-code names, and The Bride out for revenge. It's awesome on many different levels, but deep? Not if you compare it to anything he's done before Kill Bill in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 09-25-2012, 06:31 AM
I agree that his movies post-Jackie Brown are more about his love of obscure movies and about his style, but I disagree that there's little to no substance or character.

Obviously Kill Bill: Vol. I is mostly known for its samurai-style violence at the end, but I thought the character building of the Bride was well done leading up to bloody finale. Avenging and killing a mother in front of her daughter - possibly setting up a spinoff that QT has alluded to possibly doing, waking up from a coma to learn that her daughter didn't survive (or so we thought), seeing the violent and tragic backstory of O-Ren Ishii, and getting a retired sword-maker to make one more instrument of death. I loved those story points in the first one. Obviously I'm a big fan of the ending, but it's not the only thing that made the movie so great and fun. And I love how QT paid homage to martial arts/samurai/Bruce Lee in the first and westerns in the second.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 09-25-2012, 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I disagree with this. Takashi Miike makes one good film for every 5 he makes. Tarantino, in my opinion, has made a great film every time out save for Death Proof. The lengthy productions aren't necessarily what holds him back from making two films a year, it's the fact that he spends time with his stories and scripts, making sure they are in top shape. Also, a lot of the production issues have to do with cast scheduling, something Miike probably has never had to worry about, whereas Tarantino has to worry about it with nearly all of his films.
Well, in my opinion Miike makes good films more often than not, and he's one of the most versatile directors working today, who shows more originality in one movie than Tarantino has in an entire career. At least Miike embraces his B-movie material instead of pretending it's more important than it really is. Somehow the hype always elevates Tarantino's material. Kill Bill was a fun movie, it wasn't a great movie by any means, and the second was way too pretentious for the actual story it was telling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Again, I disagree. There isn't another director working today making films as entertaining as Tarantino. Kill Bill is bold, epic, smart, entertaining, filled with great performances and featuring some of the best action sequences in decades. Most action directors wish they could direct a sequence as fantastic as the House of Blue Leaves showdown or structure a story in such a satisfying way. Same goes for Basterds (minus the action sequences, of which there are few). There are maybe 4 or 5 directors whose films I will unconditionally go see on opening day. Tarantino is one of those directors.
I agree about Volume 1, however after seeing the second film I felt like the story could not sustain the running time of the entire affair. Tarantino called it a grindhouse revenge movie that pays homage to B-movies of the 70s... so why is it four hours long? Why are we paying twice for the same story? I felt really ripped off as a fan of Tarantino's work and I felt that was a huge turning point for him, buying into his own ego and screwing over his fans to make Miramax more money.

He should have cut out the fat and left it as one movie. If it's handled well, people won't mind the run-time. As it is now, I can't stand to watch either one because they feel seriously padded out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
The sky is blue, death is certain. No one is Stanley fucking Kubrick, nor is anyone arguing otherwise. This is a completely arbitrary comment.
It's not arbitrary, we're talking about Tarantino's frequent issues with heading a production within a reasonable amount of time. Stanley Kubrick is another director who is notorious for having shoots go way over length and sometimes budget. While filming Eyes Wide Shut Harvey Keitel had to drop out and was ultimately replaced by Sydney Pollack. If Tarantino turned out movies as good as Kubrick's films, I wouldn't criticize him for failing to run efficient shoots. When you consider the output of his films post Jackie Brown, you realize that it's an abundance of ego and yes men, and a lack of collaborators who are willing to tell him to tone down the self-indulgence from time to time.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 09-25-2012, 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
At least Miike embraces his B-movie material instead of pretending it's more important than it really is.
The thing is, I don't think Tarantino is aiming to necessarily make B-movies. He takes B-movie material and turns it into an epic story, where you have a strong narrative, good dialogue, interesting characters and an effective exploration of themes. When Tarantino tries to mimic a B-movie, he ends up with Death Proof. What he has done with his other films is more than just making a B-movie. I'm not saying he's making abstract, intellectual masterpieces, but he's providing entertainment with roots in B-movie material that is ultimately better than the majority of B-movies. The majority of his films, right back to Dogs, are filled with a bunch of shit you've seen a million times before, but he structures his stories and writes his characters and dialogue in a way that elevates rather mundane material into something incredible. Not many people can do what he does.
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 09-25-2012, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
The thing is, I don't think Tarantino is aiming to necessarily make B-movies. He takes B-movie material and turns it into an epic story, where you have a strong narrative, good dialogue, interesting characters and an effective exploration of themes.
I agree that is his ultimate goal, I just don't think he's succeeded since the 90s. Kill Bill Vol 1 had moments of greatness, but tonally it's all over the place. The brutal hospital sequence, the Japanese anime, and the sword fight in the snow all feel like they belong in different movies. He's paying homage to all of his favorite genre flicks, including so many wink wink moments and giving in to self-indulgence that at the end of the day he doesn't have a coherent film. Volume 1 and 2 barely feel like parts of the same story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Not many people can do what he does.
I disagree, he's a fanboy, just like us. He started as a nerd in a video store with dreams of making films, he just had enough motivation and luck to actually succeed. Give anybody enough cocaine and budget and they could churn out something like Death Proof.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 09-25-2012, 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
I disagree, he's a fanboy, just like us. He started as a nerd in a video store with dreams of making films, he just had enough motivation and luck to actually succeed.
Motivation certainly had a lot to do with it, along with the fact that he's probably watched more films than anyone on the planet, but I'm fairly certain I read that he also has a genius IQ (like 160+). Not that a high IQ means everything, but you can tell that he's a very smart individual with a natural talent for writing and directing. I'm sure there are plenty of fanboys with motivation, but you need more than motivation to be as good and successful as Tarantino.

Last edited by Bourne101; 09-25-2012 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 09-25-2012, 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
but you need more than motivation to be as good and successful as Tarantino.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 09-25-2012, 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Motivation certainly had a lot to do with it, along with the fact that he's probably watched more films than anyone on the planet, but I'm fairly certain I read that he also has a genius IQ (like 160+). Not that a high IQ means everything, but you can tell that he's a very smart individual with a natural talent for writing and directing. I'm sure there are plenty of fanboys with motivation, but you need more than motivation to be as good and successful as Tarantino.
Sorry, I should point out the fact that I was referring to his recent output. I don't think many people are capable of making films like Pulp Fiction. I do agree that the man has a lot of talent, which is why it's so frustrating to see him waste that potential on films like Kill Bill and Death Proof.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 09-25-2012, 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
The problem here is that the final product didn't justify the production time or running length of the film(s). He's been doing B-movies for the past decade and if he were a better filmmaker, he'd be more prolific and/or efficient like Takashi Miike. I think he's seriously gone downhill after he peaked with Jackie Brown. The guy is not Stanley fucking Kubrick.
Nah. Pulp Fiction is a greater film than Kubrick ever made (as much as I adore A Clockwork Orange), and 2001 is much worse than any Tarantino film (yes, I said it, and can ably defend it).

Last edited by Trilljoy; 09-25-2012 at 09:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 09-25-2012, 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilljoy View Post
Nah. Pulp Fiction is a greater film than Kubrick ever made (as much as I adore A Clockwork Orange), and 2001 is much worse than any Tarantino film (yes, I said it, and can ably defend it).
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 09-25-2012, 11:30 PM
I also think 2001 is overrated that said, I don't hate it. It has a lot of undeniable good qualities and its WAY freaking better than Death Proof!

It's not even Kubrick's worst movie. The Shining is Kubrick's worst.

Time for the flaming to begin!
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 09-26-2012, 01:22 PM
2001 is probably the most groundbreaking film of all time.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 09-26-2012, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I also think 2001 is overrated that said, I don't hate it. It has a lot of undeniable good qualities and its WAY freaking better than Death Proof!

It's not even Kubrick's worst movie. The Shining is Kubrick's worst.

Time for the flaming to begin!
Nahh, I'm just going to say I disagree and be on my way.

Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 09-26-2012, 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
The Shining is Kubrick's worst.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 09-26-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
haha
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 09-26-2012, 04:53 PM
WOW, there are some serious body blows being thrown around here. Was just passing through and couldn't help but jump in.

First off, The Shining is a god damned classic. And its not all Kubrick. Jack was absolutely epic in that role. It is my second favorite of his behind McMurphy. And given that I feel McMurphy is one of the very best roles/characters in one of the very best movies ever made, being in second place is no slight at all. Jack Torrance is as menacing, dangerous, and as off his rocker scary as it gets. That was a team effort, Kubrick and Nicholson captured lightning in a bottle.

As to its rank among Kubrick films, its certainly my favorite. IMO, A Clockwork Orange and 2001 tend to get a little dull in parts. I loved the creepiness of 2001, the isolation in space, HAL the computer going psycho, very tense stuff. But then the gorillas and the monolith, WTF?!?!?!? Why not just stick with creeping me out, that was a lot of fun. But no, Kubrick goes all bizzaro with the monolith. Same thing with Clockwork too. He had to get weird. I know that's just him but it does nothing for me. Oh, and Full Metal jacket is the tits too. "Me love you long time", fucking one of the best scene's ever in a war movie. IMO, this is the best of the Vietnam movies. Yes, better than Platoon.

As to Tarantino, Pulp Fiction is by far his best. Although not by much as Dogs is a classic as well. And really, everything since then has been a little bit dull to me. Kill Bill was better than Sominex, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, right to sleep for me. Just re watched Jackie Brown the other night thinking maybe a few years and more mature outlook would help. Nope, still only mildly entertaining. I actually like Deathproof the best since Pulp Fiction but still only a little better than average. As it stands I have him at 2 classics and in the midst of a long slump. Here's hoping Django is a return to form.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 10-10-2012, 07:57 PM
Brand new trailer for Django Unchained - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2g1
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 10-10-2012, 09:16 PM
Good trailer glad it showed a little more of the humor. Jonah Hill's bit was hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 10-10-2012, 10:22 PM
Calling it now: DiCaprio will win best supporting actor.
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 10-10-2012, 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Calling it now: DiCaprio will win best supporting actor.
That would be awesome. Seymour-Hoffman and, from the looks of it, Tommy Lee Jones are gonna be rough competition though. Knowing that you've read the script, does Leo's role read like something substantial enough to get him a win? Is it gonna be like a Hans Landa kind of role or maybe even something deeper? I'm only asking because he seems to be only one of the villains in the film between him, Samuel L. Jackson, and the brothers that they're after.
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 10-10-2012, 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmKing2000 View Post
That would be awesome. Seymour-Hoffman and, from the looks of it, Tommy Lee Jones are gonna be rough competition though. Knowing that you've read the script, does Leo's role read like something substantial enough to get him a win? Is it gonna be like a Hans Landa kind of role or maybe even something deeper? I'm only asking because he seems to be only one of the villains in the film between him, Samuel L. Jackson, and the brothers that they're after.
Oh it's definitely substantial enough. I don't want to spoil anything for you but he's definitely the main villain. It's a meaty part and it's so very different from anything he's done before (some of the shit that comes out of his mouth will have people's jaws on the floor) that he will really stand out.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 10-11-2012, 12:07 AM
Love this shot:

Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 10-11-2012, 01:27 AM
Lordy Lordy does that new trailer look flat out AWESOME!

This one is right at the top of my MUST SEE list!
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 10-11-2012, 05:10 AM
They gave quite a bit away,but this still looks like fun and a lot of great one liners.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 10-11-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Calling it now: DiCaprio will win best supporting actor.
Man, I hope you're right.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 10-11-2012, 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Oh it's definitely substantial enough. I don't want to spoil anything for you but he's definitely the main villain. It's a meaty part and it's so very different from anything he's done before (some of the shit that comes out of his mouth will have people's jaws on the floor) that he will really stand out.
Plus (serious script spoilers):
Spoiler:
Tarantino completely reworked the ending so we have no idea whether he will be extended past the point of his death in the script
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 10-11-2012, 04:22 PM
QT, you marvelous bastard. How the fuckdick did Will Smith turn this movie down? You figure - any actor - how successful or not would move mountains just to work with Tarantino.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 10-11-2012, 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post
QT, you marvelous bastard. How the fuckdick did Will Smith turn this movie down? You figure - any actor - how successful or not would move mountains just to work with Tarantino.
I know dumbass move on his part I would have loved to see that although I think Jamie Fox looks good.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 10-24-2012, 02:06 PM
A lot of people complain that Tarantino broke away from his 90's style, while i'm glad he entered a new era.
Although I agree two of his very best films (Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown) were made during this era, it wasn't what he ultimately wanted to do.
As an artist, grindhouse and exploitation cinema are the core of his being. In that sense Kill Bill, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds represent the very heart and soul of Tarantino. For this reason, I applaud him for expressing it. He doesn't give in to the studios, or the audience, or his fans. He makes pieces that speak to him. He makes what is important to him. Why should he have to cater to fans?
What famous painter looked to his or her fanbase to find inspiration? What great artist should?
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 10-24-2012, 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
Although I agree two of his very best films (Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown) were made during this era, it wasn't what he ultimately wanted to do.

In that sense Kill Bill, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds represent the very heart and soul of Tarantino.
You're probably right. And this saddens me.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 10-31-2012, 06:10 PM
Stills of Spencer Gordon Bennet (Don Johnson) and Billy Crash (Walton Goggins)





I have a feeling that both of these guys are going to be stealing scenes.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 10-31-2012, 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I have a feeling that both of these guys are going to be stealing scenes.
If theres one thing Tarantino is good at, it's a knack for writing interesting characters and then casting them near perfectly.
Just about any character has the ability to steal a scene in a Tarantino movie, and that is part of what makes them so entertaining.
I have no doubt that this movie will be full of some of the most eccentric, and entertaining performances yet!
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 10-31-2012, 11:02 PM
I don't know about this...
Just watched the 1966 DJANGO to get a frame of reference, and the above trailer doesn't look like it has much of anything to do with the original.

Which is fine... and I'm gonna go see it for sure. But I'm a little worried that it's gonna turn into another self-indulgent, far-fetched, go-back-in-time-and-wail-on-the-bad-guys yawner like IB. Who wouldn't want to go back and pummel the Nazis or the slave owners? But turning a do-gooder fantasy like that into a full feature film and foisting it off as art is just wrong.

IB felt to me more like QT's pleasuring himself for his own amusement and titilation than anything of value to anyone else. I hope DJANGO UNCHAINED proves to be something different.

Last edited by maude; 10-31-2012 at 11:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 11-01-2012, 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
A lot of people complain that Tarantino broke away from his 90's style, while i'm glad he entered a new era.
Although I agree two of his very best films (Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown) were made during this era, it wasn't what he ultimately wanted to do.
As an artist, grindhouse and exploitation cinema are the core of his being. In that sense Kill Bill, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds represent the very heart and soul of Tarantino. For this reason, I applaud him for expressing it. He doesn't give in to the studios, or the audience, or his fans. He makes pieces that speak to him. He makes what is important to him. Why should he have to cater to fans?
What famous painter looked to his or her fanbase to find inspiration? What great artist should?
But you see this is the double-standard Tarantino and his fans provide for him that I think was at the core of the previous (dead) debate. The problem is not that he is doing "what he ultimately wanted to do" or that grindhouse and exploitation cinema "are at the core of his being" nor that, as a result, he is making "pieces that speak to him." It is that he has an almost unlimited potential, and he chooses, instead of making groundbreaking great cinema, to make the type of B movie homages you refer to; yet, despite this, desires to talk, and be talked about, as if he is one of our great auteurs making great cinema. He could be at the same level as PTA, or Malick, or whatever, in the sort of 'great cinema' game we like to play, but is frankly not, because he has chosen not to be. Yet despite this he demands that he be treated as if he were their peers and making cinema on their level.

This, I think, is the galvanizing point for those frustrated with him, his use of potential, and the defensive treatment he receives from his fans.

Last edited by Gordon; 11-01-2012 at 01:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 11-01-2012, 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
He could be at the same level as PTA, or Malick, or whatever, in the sort of 'great cinema' game we like to play, but is frankly not, because he has chosen not to be. Yet despite this he demands that he be treated as if he were their peers and making cinema on their level.
I don't think he has chosen not to be, he's just not making the kind of films that end up in a Sight & Sound top 10 poll. I don't think this makes him a lesser filmmaker than those you mentioned (I actually think he's a better filmmaker than Malick, who borders on self-parody at times and whose films aren't as dense as people make them out to be), he's just a different filmmaker. Malick is an intellectual filmmaker, PTA is an emotional filmmaker, and Tarantino is a master of entertainment. Each of these three filmmakers has a film in my top 10, so for me, I don't rank one kind of filmmaking as better than another. All I ask of any of these three styles is that the film leave me with something to chew on... something where I can go to a pub afterward with some friends and have a great discussion.

Even though Tarantino's main focus is entertainment, his approach to character still makes his films thought-provoking. As I mentioned in the Killing Them Softly thread, he is very nonjudgmental of his characters and leaves plenty for the audience to discuss (whether it be morals, why a character made a certain decision, etc.). It may be wrapped in a plot about killing Hitler or getting revenge on a man who shot you while you were pregnant, but it's still there. Ironically, it's generally more subtle than in a film by Malick or PTA, who have recently almost begged you to look for deeper meaning or to discuss ambiguity. Some have called Hans Landa merely a caricature, but there's more there if you wish to seek it out. There is a lot to ponder about the time at which he pulls out the large pipe; his strange admiration of Jews, even if he is named The Jew Hunter; whether he actually knew Shoshanna was Shoshanna at the restaurant or whether it was merely coincidence that he ordered her cream (not kosher) and milk; why he boasts about his title of The Jew Hunter in the first scene, but scoffs at it later in the film; why he throws the Nazi party under the bus; should we have sympathy for him because he was instrumental in killing Hitler? The list goes on, and questions in a similar ballpark come up for various characters in not only Basterds, but Kill Bill and his earlier films. Yeah, it may seem silly to speculate on such things in the context of a movie about killing Nazis, but it's there... along with the great dialogue, performances, cinematography, etc. His main focus is entertainment, but he's not treating you like an idiot.

And I don't think he demands that he be treated as their peers, I think he just is. He is very well-respected in Hollywood. He and PTA are best friends, they love each others work and respect each other very much. They make very different movies, but when one of them makes a great film, it pushes the other to be even better.

Last edited by Bourne101; 11-01-2012 at 01:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 11-01-2012, 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post

I have a feeling that both of these guys are going to be stealing scenes.
I wouldn't be surprised by Goggins stealing his scenes. The guy is fucking awesome on Justified and I'm sure he'll be great here too.
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 11-01-2012, 03:42 AM
I can't wait for Django Unchained.

Last edited by MikeMovie; 11-01-2012 at 03:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 11-12-2012, 06:08 PM
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 11-12-2012, 06:37 PM
Damn, that is one sick poster....
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