he was his own father!13urnzz wrote:
this, not what i expected, but not sappyROGUEDD wrote:
Looper
8/10
Django Unchained
Absolute 10/10. Best Tarantino film I've seen and I've seen them all.
!
Absolute 10/10. Best Tarantino film I've seen and I've seen them all.
!
Last edited by Shocking (2013-02-01 11:19:06)
inane little opines
Beasts of the Southern Wild 10/10 similar to life of pi in quality of story and it's a kid's perspective/journey... yet this is set in the South and Much much better with a lower budget.. also 5x better than wes anderson's moonrise kingdom.
:]
:]
'S'mofo butter layin' me to da' bone! Jackin' me up... tightly.
are you kidding? django unchained is not a great movie. review your opinion in 3 months, after the hype has worn off.Shocking wrote:
Django Unchained
Absolute 10/10. Best Tarantino film I've seen and I've seen them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMkujuy9bMc
!
it was a 7/10 for me, at best. the plot was fucking terrible. the twist/escape deus ex machina was fucking laughable. tarantino's cameo was no longer a quaint in-joke and reference, and more of an outright disrespect - the worst acting he has ever done. jamie as the lead actor was bad: his acting only seemed good in the scenes where he was next to tarantino, which is really saying something. the violence and nigger references were tedious. the whole movie is wrapped up in an ethically dubious sense of boring-predictable controversy that i don't care for one bit. half of the scenes coulda met the cutting room floor, graciously, and stayed there. the KKK pillow-case scene wasn't funny, wasn't intelligent, wasn't slapstick, and wasn't right being in the movie (nor was the fat kid from superbad's casting, and terrible accent).
"10/10 best ever tarantino" suggests you are not much of a film buff. if you want an exotically-themed gore-fest, kill bill is far superior in just about every single way.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-04 11:04:57)
Part 1 or Part 2?
part 1 is better in my opinion, but there's not exactly a huge difference in aesthetic or style or quality/consistency.
django is pretty poor in comparison. i mean, the basic plotting of the movie is dumb. there are loads of continuity errors and anachronisms that are confusing and irritating. without going into spoiler-references, the whole last third of the movie is just a pretext for tarantino's little boy imagination running wild - just one long reel of fetishized violence, with no sense, or congruency. the resolution of the film is a bad joke. it doesn't really leave you with any lasting impression or effect other than "well, tarantino just threw a lot of money and not much personal restraint at a slavery movie". great if you want to see gun battles and blood explosions. crap for almost everything else.
the thin veneer of european references he tried to lend the film - wagner epics, french literature, classical references, etc. seemed like a vain attempt to pack some 'depth' into the script-writing. the whole movie really, though, is just a long string of 'controversial' spectacles and set-pieces, strung together on a minimum of narrative art and effort. also, what's the deal with leo dicaprio's character being a senior plantation owner and supposedly kingpin-intimidating figure, when he looks about 22?
to concede something, i enjoyed the first third of the movie, when django and the dentist are just venturing around, bounty hunting. that felt like a pretty funny and quite entertaining little picaresque tale - had something of the fantastical don quixote about it. it was funny, it was fairly immersive, and it had the thrust and excitement of adventure. after that, after the tale 'darkens' and gets a little more dramatic/serious... the film just undermines itself, really.
django is pretty poor in comparison. i mean, the basic plotting of the movie is dumb. there are loads of continuity errors and anachronisms that are confusing and irritating. without going into spoiler-references, the whole last third of the movie is just a pretext for tarantino's little boy imagination running wild - just one long reel of fetishized violence, with no sense, or congruency. the resolution of the film is a bad joke. it doesn't really leave you with any lasting impression or effect other than "well, tarantino just threw a lot of money and not much personal restraint at a slavery movie". great if you want to see gun battles and blood explosions. crap for almost everything else.
the thin veneer of european references he tried to lend the film - wagner epics, french literature, classical references, etc. seemed like a vain attempt to pack some 'depth' into the script-writing. the whole movie really, though, is just a long string of 'controversial' spectacles and set-pieces, strung together on a minimum of narrative art and effort. also, what's the deal with leo dicaprio's character being a senior plantation owner and supposedly kingpin-intimidating figure, when he looks about 22?
to concede something, i enjoyed the first third of the movie, when django and the dentist are just venturing around, bounty hunting. that felt like a pretty funny and quite entertaining little picaresque tale - had something of the fantastical don quixote about it. it was funny, it was fairly immersive, and it had the thrust and excitement of adventure. after that, after the tale 'darkens' and gets a little more dramatic/serious... the film just undermines itself, really.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-04 11:16:24)
Or you could watch toxic sludge melt people in Robocop.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
"10/10 best ever tarantino" suggests you are not much of a film buff. if you want an exotically-themed gore-fest, kill bill is far superior in just about every single way.
Toxic sludge would be better than any Tarantino crapfest.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Or you could watch toxic sludge melt people in Robocop.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
"10/10 best ever tarantino" suggests you are not much of a film buff. if you want an exotically-themed gore-fest, kill bill is far superior in just about every single way.
Unless he's sending up the crap and shallow nature of modern films by making the crappest, shallowest films of all.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
idiot film watchers like to quote and 'look up' to tarantino because he is a dumb hollywood version of auteur-cinema, in the eyes of the uneducated masses. they like to cite him as a 'proper' director because he has a heavily stylized niche and plugs the same few things... most of which, the good parts anyway, are stolen directly from far superior directors such as david lynch (for e.g. the absurd/surreal quotidian conversations in the middle of a dramatic or heightened sequence). tarantino is a director who has made his living peddling superficially-deep cinema to a thoroughly-shallow audience. he's 'cinema' lite for lazy people who like to think they're watching something a little high-brow and auteur, when really they're just watching hollywood's biggest baby run wild with an exorbitant budget. some of his films are entertaining and amusing, in a 'oh, you!' kind of way... but they are completely light on substance. which is why him taking on slavery for a film has stirred up all sorts of cries of 'black exploitation film' from the black intelligentsia of america (e.g. ishmael reed). tarantino's engagement with the topic will never be anything deeper than the engagement a little kid has with the native american plight, when he plays with his 4 inch tall toy figures. tarantino just has a more advanced toybox.
in this respect he's just below the coen brothers or aronofsky in hipster-lite cinema for half-interested college age morons. not a first-rate. enjoyable on their own terms, but frustratingly seem to be the go-to 'look! i like deep movies!' namedrops, even though they're not even in the same ballpark as proper art-cinema directors.
in this respect he's just below the coen brothers or aronofsky in hipster-lite cinema for half-interested college age morons. not a first-rate. enjoyable on their own terms, but frustratingly seem to be the go-to 'look! i like deep movies!' namedrops, even though they're not even in the same ballpark as proper art-cinema directors.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-05 07:08:59)
Pulp Fiction is the best film of April 1, 1994
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6325|Graz, Austria
I like Reservoir Dogs best.
I still like some of his movies more than Michael Bay's or Uwe Boll's. I sort of categorize them as bloodsoaked slapstick violence with a dash of profanity. They have their niche and other films have theirs. Regardless of who he's copied, he sure sells.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
idiot film watchers like to quote and 'look up' to tarantino because he is a dumb hollywood version of auteur-cinema, in the eyes of the uneducated masses.
Still, I haven't seen Django yet. I was going to go one day, but instead decided to see the Hobbit again. I followed up with Willow later that evening.
Copying is sort of the point for him.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
really? how?Jay wrote:
Copying is sort of the point for him.
He considers himself a student of cinema in the way that Scorcese is. The movies he creates are meant to pay homage to past films and genres. When you say that he is unoriginal and you can see the work of X, Y, and Z director in his film, you're actually paying him a compliment.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
really? how?Jay wrote:
Copying is sort of the point for him.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no, not at all. paying homage and knowing reference/allusion to past greats is a typical theme in all art. it's a part of 'paying your dues', and an attempt to find your own place at the canonical table. everyone does this. it's a knowing wink-wink-nudge-nudge insider-game that wins points amongst other aficionados and nerds. ditto with doing films within a specific genre or theme: it's like a 'challenge' or 'milestone' that every artist attempts. every writer will attempt a bildungsroman. every hollywood director will attempt a gangster flick. every band will attempt the concept album, etc. these are established forms that ambitious artists will attempt to 'make their own'. that's the key part, though: making their own. tarantino's best parts are just plainly derivative of far superior directors. he seems 'singular' and 'quirky' to the casual movie-going hollywood fans, but in fact his quirkiness is like the watered-down, commercially-friendly aspects of far more daring and radical directors.
there's a big difference between working knowingly and self-referentially within a tradition... and then emptily re-presenting someone else's creativity. all of tarantino's supposed 'idiosyncrasies' are just things taken wholesale from directors such as a lynch. every so-called 'serious' artist considers themselves a "student to the artform" or a "student of [x school]". the important part of being a student is that you graduate into your own maturity. tarantino has never left a phase of prolonged adolescence. his film-making is nowhere near as novel or genius or profound or inventive as many not-very-film-literate movie-fans like to believe.
there's a big difference between working knowingly and self-referentially within a tradition... and then emptily re-presenting someone else's creativity. all of tarantino's supposed 'idiosyncrasies' are just things taken wholesale from directors such as a lynch. every so-called 'serious' artist considers themselves a "student to the artform" or a "student of [x school]". the important part of being a student is that you graduate into your own maturity. tarantino has never left a phase of prolonged adolescence. his film-making is nowhere near as novel or genius or profound or inventive as many not-very-film-literate movie-fans like to believe.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-05 08:55:25)
What do you think of Jackie Brown? Some have called it his most serious and best written movie despite not getting the same attention as his other ones. It wasn't hyper stylized or anything. The violence wasn't over the top. The characters aren't caricatures. It is pretty much the most non QT movie QT ever made.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
idiot film watchers like to quote and 'look up' to tarantino because he is a dumb hollywood version of auteur-cinema, in the eyes of the uneducated masses. they like to cite him as a 'proper' director because he has a heavily stylized niche and plugs the same few things... most of which, the good parts anyway, are stolen directly from far superior directors such as david lynch (for e.g. the absurd/surreal quotidian conversations in the middle of a dramatic or heightened sequence). tarantino is a director who has made his living peddling superficially-deep cinema to a thoroughly-shallow audience. he's 'cinema' lite for lazy people who like to think they're watching something a little high-brow and auteur, when really they're just watching hollywood's biggest baby run wild with an exorbitant budget. some of his films are entertaining and amusing, in a 'oh, you!' kind of way... but they are completely light on substance. which is why him taking on slavery for a film has stirred up all sorts of cries of 'black exploitation film' from the black intelligentsia of america (e.g. ishmael reed). tarantino's engagement with the topic will never be anything deeper than the engagement a little kid has with the native american plight, when he plays with his 4 inch tall toy figures. tarantino just has a more advanced toybox.
in this respect he's just below the coen brothers or aronofsky in hipster-lite cinema for half-interested college age morons. not a first-rate. enjoyable on their own terms, but frustratingly seem to be the go-to 'look! i like deep movies!' namedrops, even though they're not even in the same ballpark as proper art-cinema directors.
which may be why some critics love it so much & heap praise on it. i don't like it, though. blaxploitation has never been something i really enjoy, or see much aesthetic merit in. mac here's a great quote which i just remembered whilst trying to formulate what it is about tarantino that makes me uneasy. it's by ya new favourite poster-boy, DFW:
e: i even realised he too used the 'idiosyncrasy' line, which makes it look like a plagiarism on my part now... but there you have it, this is all post hoc now.
i think that's an incredibly astute quotation.In a way, what Tarantino has done with the French New Wave and with David Lynch is what Pat Boone did with rhythm and blues: He's found (ingeniously) a way to take what is ragged and distinctive and menacing about their work and homogenize it, churn it until it's smooth and cool and hygienic enough for mass consumption. Reservoir Dogs, for example, with its comically banal lunch chatter, creepily otiose code names, and intrusive soundtrack of campy pop from decades past, is a Lynch movie made commercial, i.e., fast, linear, and with what was idiosyncratically surreal now made fashionably (i.e., "hiply") surreal [...] D. Lynch is an exponentially better filmmaker than Q. Tarantino. For, unlike Tarantino, D. Lynch knows that an act of violence in an American film has, through repetition and desensitization, lost the ability to refer to anything but itself. A better way to put what I just tried to say: Quentin Tarantino is interested in watching somebody's ear getting cut off; David Lynch is interested in the ear.
e: i even realised he too used the 'idiosyncrasy' line, which makes it look like a plagiarism on my part now... but there you have it, this is all post hoc now.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-05 13:41:21)
I didn't like Inglorious Basterds.
It was a stupid movie.
It was a stupid movie.
Reservoir dogs - 6/10, chopped up into bite-sized chunks. a few good scenes, but can't rewatch often.
Pulp Fiction - 8/10, helped Travolta get back on track. feels pretty episodic, but the multiple storylines were fun.
Jackie Brown - 4/10, not my cup of tea.
Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 9/10, nice splash spectacle.
Kill Bill Vol. 2 - 7/10, splash spectacle, good death scenes but didn't feel as fun as the first
Sin City - 5/10, but to be fair, it had nice effects and let Elijah Wood play a bad guy for once.
Death Proof - 2/10, could have been 10 minutes long and still leave the same limp impression.
Inglourious Basterds - 3/10, nationalist wank for proper Muricans. Cristoph Waltz' performance bumps it up beyond the rating I gave, though.
Django Unchained - ?/10, haven't seen.
Everything else - meh/10 or haven't seen
Pulp Fiction - 8/10, helped Travolta get back on track. feels pretty episodic, but the multiple storylines were fun.
Jackie Brown - 4/10, not my cup of tea.
Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 9/10, nice splash spectacle.
Kill Bill Vol. 2 - 7/10, splash spectacle, good death scenes but didn't feel as fun as the first
Sin City - 5/10, but to be fair, it had nice effects and let Elijah Wood play a bad guy for once.
Death Proof - 2/10, could have been 10 minutes long and still leave the same limp impression.
Inglourious Basterds - 3/10, nationalist wank for proper Muricans. Cristoph Waltz' performance bumps it up beyond the rating I gave, though.
Django Unchained - ?/10, haven't seen.
Everything else - meh/10 or haven't seen
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6694
I was always skeptical of film majors whose favorite director was Quentin Tarantino. I enjoyed all of his films, but his style reminds me of anime more so than in any other films. I like anime so that's not an issue with me. The excess gore is not meant to be serious. I interpret it as being a kind of exaggerated dramatics, a vaudeville style of performance. What this style achieves is over-stimulation in whatever emotion is being grabbed at. This opposes to the general logical complication of a film which draws on that to achieve more subtle, but more powerful, emotional grabs. Of all the directors that do pure entertainment, Tarantino does some of the best.
Keep us updatedunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Reservoir dogs - 6/10, chopped up into bite-sized chunks. a few good scenes, but can't rewatch often.
Pulp Fiction - 8/10, helped Travolta get back on track. feels pretty episodic, but the multiple storylines were fun.
Jackie Brown - 4/10, not my cup of tea.
Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 9/10, nice splash spectacle.
Kill Bill Vol. 2 - 7/10, splash spectacle, good death scenes but didn't feel as fun as the first
Sin City - 5/10, but to be fair, it had nice effects and let Elijah Wood play a bad guy for once.
Death Proof - 2/10, could have been 10 minutes long and still leave the same limp impression.
Inglourious Basterds - 3/10, nationalist wank for proper Muricans. Cristoph Waltz' performance bumps it up beyond the rating I gave, though.
Django Unchained - ?/10, haven't seen.
Everything else - meh/10 or haven't seen
film ratings in a film ratings thread. oh teh noes.
In all honesty I want to hear your opinion on Planet Terror.