baggs wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i liked it a lot but it was a far cry from a 9.75. jesus christ. it's a good movie but it's actually one of those films that seems worse in retrospect, not better. it's impressively done but i'm not sure what i really dig about it other than the stylization. it's just tarantino with a better music taste.
I have no idea where you are going with 'it's just a Tarantino'. Nothing like a Tarantino, i think you're rambling... which for you, sadly, is just a bad habit.
lol? rambling is a bad habit? it's not a 9.75 movie. what is a 9.8 in your books then? stupid rating system to be honest.
and my point about it being tarantino-like is that it's heavily stylized, violence is depicted simply for the sake of grotesque violence (in film criticism they say that the violence is a referent only to itself; this is a supposed trademark of postmodern american film, pioneered by the likes of lynch, tarantino et al). the film has hardly anything in terms of the strange digressive and irreverent dialogue, sure, but i'm not sure that difference is actually to the film's advantage. there's a fine line between 'artful' silence and just plain muteness. goslings character rides that fine line between cryptic-protagonist and plain ridiculousness.
don't get me wrong, it's a good movie. i wouldn't say there are any 'bad' parts to drive. but 9.75? that's a near-perfect score for a film in a genre and style that has been done many times before (arguably better in the case of films like taxi driver).
so how am i rambling? please. what a stupid thing to say. go back to posting screenshots to yourself in the LoL thread you sad fuck.