Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reservoir Dogs Coming To UHD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    And again, Jackie Brown isn't his. He put a cool twist on Leonard's book, but it's still mostly just what's on the page.

    Not to negate anything written here, especially a rad reference to The Mix-Up.

    Comment


    • #17
      I guess the thing I need to consider is what QT's intentions were with JACKIE BROWN. Not knowing the history of that project, I would have to assume that after PULP FICTION he was in a position to do pretty much any film he wanted, and this was an opportunity for him to go smaller and deliberately low key. It's probably safe to say that he didn't intend for JB to set the world on fire the way PF did - his second film was an event, his third a simple adaptation that showed he had the ability to shift gears.

      PULP FICTION was a cinematic experience in the way that stuff like 2001:A SPACE ODDYSEY, THE EXORCIST, EASY RIDER and THE GODFATHER was, and it would be extremely hard to match that much less top it (although in my Beastie Boys analogy I'd say that Check Your Head came about as close as you can to the genius of Paul's Boutique. Maybe I'll start a Beastie thread). Tarantino was smart to make that swerve before the excess of KILL BILL and it clearly worked in hindsight because JB has it's die-hard fans for sure. I'm just not one of them ;-)
      Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

      Comment


      • #18
        Have you seen it more than once?
        Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Matt H. View Post
          Have you seen it more than once?
          Once when it was first released then again about 5 years ago.
          Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
            I guess the thing I need to consider is what QT's intentions were with JACKIE BROWN. Not knowing the history of that project, I would have to assume that after PULP FICTION he was in a position to do pretty much any film he wanted, and this was an opportunity for him to go smaller and deliberately low key. It's probably safe to say that he didn't intend for JB to set the world on fire the way PF did - his second film was an event, his third a simple adaptation that showed he had the ability to shift gears.

            PULP FICTION was a cinematic experience in the way that stuff like 2001:A SPACE ODDYSEY, THE EXORCIST, EASY RIDER and THE GODFATHER was, and it would be extremely hard to match that much less top it (although in my Beastie Boys analogy I'd say that Check Your Head came about as close as you can to the genius of Paul's Boutique. Maybe I'll start a Beastie thread). Tarantino was smart to make that swerve before the excess of KILL BILL and it clearly worked in hindsight because JB has it's die-hard fans for sure. I'm just not one of them ;-)
            PULP FICTION is one of those flicks I saw in the theatre during it's initial run, and I'm going to say that no viewing of that film has held up nearly as much as what a blast of a night that was. Truth be told, though, by the time PF came out on blu-ray, I'd already seen it way too many times. I find his later films like Hateful 8 and Django Unchained to be uninspiring and overblown. I definitely loved Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, though, and thought maybe he was going to just get on with the business of making good flicks again.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mark Tolch View Post
              find his later films like Hateful 8 and Django Unchained to be uninspiring and overblown. I definitely loved Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, though, and thought maybe he was going to just get on with the business of making good flicks again.
              I made it about 45 minutes into HATEFUL 8 and felt like QT was daring me to continue watching. It was more an endurance test than a movie and I lost the battle. I don't know if I'll ever go back to that one. DJANGO UNCHAINED just felt wrong to me from the get-go and I've given it a couple shots, thinking maybe I just needed to lighten up and allow it to be what it is, which is gross. It's just a gross, offensive take on ultra-sensitive subject matter and he failed to make it work, in my opinion.

              I love ONCE UPON A TIME.
              Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Toyboy View Post

                I made it about 45 minutes into HATEFUL 8 and felt like QT was daring me to continue watching. It was more an endurance test than a movie and I lost the battle. I don't know if I'll ever go back to that one. DJANGO UNCHAINED just felt wrong to me from the get-go and I've given it a couple shots, thinking maybe I just needed to lighten up and allow it to be what it is, which is gross. It's just a gross, offensive take on ultra-sensitive subject matter and he failed to make it work, in my opinion.

                I love ONCE UPON A TIME.
                Hey, man, we can hang out.

                And yes, gross and offensive is how I would describe Django.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Both of those movies show a real lack of humanity in Tarantino, meaning he only seems to view the world and its ugliness through the camera lens and doesn't concern himself with how any of what he's showing on screen relates to real life and actual history. That's his prerogative, obviously, and he's definitely not alone in doing that but it's overbearingly bleak and nasty in his westerns, and not in a Cormac McCarthy way either where you feel he might have some insight into how man treats his fellow man. I could deal with that in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS but even then he's showing Nazis and their ideology in a distant, dispassionate way. They're cartoonish movie villains, and maybe because that's been done so much before, in the Italian nazi-sploitation films and goofy stuff like IRON SKY, that it's more tolerable than seeing horrible white men shouting the "N" word at slaves and KKK members griping about the fit of their hoods. Both ideas are problematic - reducing real world horrors to silly tropes - but QT is taking his cues from 60's and 70's exploitation in both cases and somehow the WWII scenario feels less icky.

                  Perhaps that's also why JACKIE BROWN resonates more with some people - because there is a humanity there that allows the audience to see some of the characters as being more real and relatable than in his other work. ONCE UPON A TIME shows us a vulnerable person in Rick Dalton, someone who is unsure of their place in the world and isn't the ultra-cool badass. That's partly why I enjoy DEATH PROOF so much too, in that Stuntman Mike, as much of a shitty psychopath as he is, does also have some vulnerability and weaknesses. He's not one of Rob Zombie's Firefly clan - there's some depth there. He genuinely wants Jungle Julia and her friends to like him and sit and listen to his dumb stuntman stories. Even Tarantino's bartender character is sick of his jibber jabber and shows disinterest in this old has-been.
                  Toyboy
                  like a hole in the head
                  Last edited by Toyboy; 09-26-2022, 02:08 PM.
                  Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post

                    I made it about 45 minutes into HATEFUL 8 and felt like QT was daring me to continue watching. It was more an endurance test than a movie and I lost the battle. I don't know if I'll ever go back to that one. DJANGO UNCHAINED just felt wrong to me from the get-go and I've given it a couple shots, thinking maybe I just needed to lighten up and allow it to be what it is, which is gross. It's just a gross, offensive take on ultra-sensitive subject matter and he failed to make it work, in my opinion.

                    I love ONCE UPON A TIME.
                    Ok, I'll bite -- what's gross and offensive about Django? Honestly asked in good faith -- I don't see it. It *is* extremely violent, and the language is at times tough to sit through, but it's not presented as historical fact. and he made clear (in his inimitably irritating fashion) that it took place in the "Tarantinoverse" (and I can't believe I just typed that fscking word.) It's phantasmagorical. As has been, arguably, everything he's made since JB, except maybe H8, but ... that movie has it's own pile of issues completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
                      Both of those movies show a real lack of humanity in Tarantino, meaning he only seems to view the world and its ugliness through the camera lens and doesn't concern himself with how any of what he's showing on screen relates to real life and actual history. That's his prerogative, obviously, and he's definitely not alone in doing that but it's overbearingly bleak and nasty in his westerns, and not in a Cormac McCarthy way either where you feel he might have some insight into how man treats his fellow man. I could deal with that in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS but even then he's showing Nazis and their ideology in a distant, dispassionate way. They're cartoonish movie villains, and maybe because that's been done so much before, in the Italian nazi-sploitation films and goofy stuff like IRON SKY, that it's more tolerable than seeing horrible white men shouting the "N" word at slaves and KKK members griping about the fit of their hoods. Both ideas are problematic - reducing real world horrors to silly tropes - but QT is taking his cues from 60's and 70's exploitation in both cases and somehow the WWII scenario feels less icky.

                      Perhaps that's also why JACKIE BROWN resonates more with some people - because there is a humanity there that allows the audience to see some of the characters as being more real and relatable than in his other work. ONCE UPON A TIME shows us a vulnerable person in Rick Dalton, someone who is unsure of their place in the world and isn't the ultra-cool badass. That's partly why I enjoy DEATH PROOF so much too, in that Stuntman Mike, as much of a shitty psychopath as he is, does also have some vulnerability and weaknesses. He's not one of Rob Zombie's Firefly clan - there's some depth there. He genuinely wants Jungle Julia and her friends to like him and sit and listen to his dumb stuntman stories. Even Tarantino's bartender character is sick of his jibber jabber and shows disinterest in this old has-been.
                      I agree with all of this except your take on Death Proof, which I thought was lazy garbage. But, of course, different strokes and such.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
                        Both of those movies show a real lack of humanity in Tarantino, meaning he only seems to view the world and its ugliness through the camera lens and doesn't concern himself with how any of what he's showing on screen relates to real life and actual history. That's his prerogative, obviously, and he's definitely not alone in doing that but it's overbearingly bleak and nasty in his westerns, and not in a Cormac McCarthy way either where you feel he might have some insight into how man treats his fellow man. I could deal with that in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS but even then he's showing Nazis and their ideology in a distant, dispassionate way. They're cartoonish movie villains, and maybe because that's been done so much before, in the Italian nazi-sploitation films and goofy stuff like IRON SKY, that it's more tolerable than seeing horrible white men shouting the "N" word at slaves and KKK members griping about the fit of their hoods. Both ideas are problematic - reducing real world horrors to silly tropes - but QT is taking his cues from 60's and 70's exploitation in both cases and somehow the WWII scenario feels less icky.

                        Perhaps that's also why JACKIE BROWN resonates more with some people - because there is a humanity there that allows the audience to see some of the characters as being more real and relatable than in his other work. ONCE UPON A TIME shows us a vulnerable person in Rick Dalton, someone who is unsure of their place in the world and isn't the ultra-cool badass. That's partly why I enjoy DEATH PROOF so much too, in that Stuntman Mike, as much of a shitty psychopath as he is, does also have some vulnerability and weaknesses. He's not one of Rob Zombie's Firefly clan - there's some depth there. He genuinely wants Jungle Julia and her friends to like him and sit and listen to his dumb stuntman stories. Even Tarantino's bartender character is sick of his jibber jabber and shows disinterest in this old has-been.
                        He's not, for better or worse, trying to further societal discourse -- he's making entertainments. They will appeal to some, and not others. I can't stomach LHOTL or LHODES due to their unflinching nihilism. QT's movies are a lot of things (some questionable) but he's absolutely not a nihilist. Having said that, I guess the challenge I'm having with your and Mark's position is that you're both of the opinion that DU is inherently offensive, and I would instead strongly argue that take is just that -- an opinion.

                        Django is an overlong revenge fantasy with more filling than needed because Tarantino. H8 is, to me, the least baked thing he's written/released. There's some beautiful photography, but to your point, you have to put up with a whole lot of ugly with it, and it's not really all that enjoyable (a couple scenes aside, anyway.)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by null View Post

                          Ok, I'll bite -- what's gross and offensive about Django? Honestly asked in good faith -- I don't see it. It *is* extremely violent, and the language is at times tough to sit through, but it's not presented as historical fact. and he made clear (in his inimitably irritating fashion) that it took place in the "Tarantinoverse" (and I can't believe I just typed that fscking word.) It's phantasmagorical. As has been, arguably, everything he's made since JB, except maybe H8, but ... that movie has it's own pile of issues completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
                          In their infamous review of BLUE VELVET Siskel & Ebert argued over the way in which Lynch treated Isabella Rosellini as an actor in that film with Ebert being disturbed by what she was required, as an actual human being and a woman, to do in that role with Siskel on the other side contending that art and fiction are not real life and that Rosellini is an actor who willfully signed on to do the things she did in front of the camera. While I see Ebert's point, I ultimately come down on the side of Siskel. Nobody tricked or forced her to be in that film and perform in those scenes.

                          With that said, in all honesty what I find most upsetting and bothersome in DJANGO UNCHAINED is the way in which Kerry Washington is treated in that film as an actor and my reasons are admittedly very personal. My wife is African American and at the time DJANGO came out she was a big fan of Kerry Washington on the show Scandal and appreciated that Washington's character on that show was not the norm in terms of presenting a black woman in a role of power and influence*. While she didn't have any interest in DJANGO UNCHIANED simply because she's not a fan of Westerns my wife does enjoy Tarantino movies for the most part, in particular PULP FICTION and KILL BILL. I went ahead and watched the movie - or most of it - without her when it showed up on Netflix and in the scenes where Washington's character, essentially the "damsel in distress" and very little more, is pulled naked from a mud pit, is whipped and later has Leonardo DiCaprio's (actual) blood smeared across her face I couldn't help but feel bad for Kerry Washington as an actor and a person. Much like the BLUE VELVET situation I understand that she made a choice to be in this film. She read a script, had discussions with Tarantino and his team and I'm sure was treated with tremendous respect and caring onset (except for maybe the blood wiping) but I could not shake the thought that Tarantino stood behind a camera and directed this black woman, who was simultaneously being seen in a positive, empowering role on her own program, as she acted in scenes that were the exact opposite in terms of progressive portrayals of African Americans. That's gross and offensive to me and I realize that's separating what's happening "in" the film from what's going on "around" it.

                          I get the "Tarantinoverse" business and the phantasmagorical aspects of DJANGO and all his other movies - Ving Rhames wasn't exactly given a shining moment in the pawn shop basement in PULP FICTION and Uma Thurman plays someone who has all manner of atrocities heaped upon her character in the KILL BILL movies - these are actors being paid to play these parts and pretend to have nasty stuff done to them (again, the DiCaprio blood smear, maybe not so much). I'm fully aware that I'm opening myself up to criticism here and promise that in general I can separate the art from the artists and accept the fantastical nature of movies but my personal hangups got in the way of me ever being able to enjoy DJANGO UNCHAINED. I accept that it's on me.

                          *this is all about ideology outside the world that exists within movies and television, something I know Tarantino is 100% against. "Art trumps ideology" is what he says, or something to that effect, and he says that as a person who has almost fully given his life over to the making and consumption of art. Real world ethics and politics are meaningless to him which is fine, but I can't always be on board with that personally
                          Toyboy
                          like a hole in the head
                          Last edited by Toyboy; 09-26-2022, 03:46 PM.
                          Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by null View Post

                            I guess the challenge I'm having with your and Mark's position is that you're both of the opinion that DU is inherently offensive, and I would instead strongly argue that take is just that -- an opinion.

                            Well, yeah....it's all just opinions LOL.

                            If I didn't think that Django was offensive for most of the running time, I sure would have had my mind changed by the time QT had to drag his bloated sweaty ass in front of the camera with his shitty accent talking down to The Blecks.

                            It's entertainment, for sure. But I don't know that, "Damn, imagine if one of these unlucky fellas had a foreign white man come by and give him money and an outfit, and whoo doggey, those Klansmen with the eye holes in the wrong place never would have seen it coming!"
                            DU is not a nod to Blacksploitation. It's a dumbing down of a horrific time in American History that thinks it's somehow acceptable because it mocks Klansmen and plantation owners. The fact that Django was a prisoner of those dumbasses until Waltz came along to save his ass and show him the way makes it even more insulting.

                            IMO, of course.

                            Hateful Eight was just QT trying like hell to make a Western that would be an epic like so many before it, but failing horribly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Toyboy View Post

                              I get the "Tarantinoverse" business and the phantasmagorical aspects of DJANGO and all his other movies - Ving Rhames wasn't exactly given a shining moment in the pawn shop basement in PULP FICTION and Uma Thurman plays someone who has all manner of atrocities heaped upon her character in the KILL BILL movies - these are actors being paid to play these parts and pretend to have nasty stuff done to them (again, the DiCaprio blood smear, maybe not so much). I'm fully aware that I'm opening myself up to criticism here and promise that in general I can separate the art from the artists and accept the fantastical nature of movies but my personal hangups got in the way of me ever being able to enjoy DJANGO UNCHAINED. I accept that it's on me.

                              *this is all about ideology outside the world that exists within movies and television, something I know Tarantino is 100% against. "Art trumps ideology" is what he says, or something to that effect, and he says that as a person who has almost fully given his life over to the making and consumption of art. Real world ethics and politics are meaningless to him which is fine, but I can't always be on board with that personally
                              First, Thank you. I appreciate (very much, actually) knowing your actual reasoning. It's 100% valid as far as I'm concerned. We don't consume entertainment without our own prejudices' (sorry), and yours is completely understandable. I don't share it, but I get it. Like I said, I can't do LHOTL or LHODES for very different, but similarly personal reasons.

                              QT's statements are best taken with the same attitude I take his movies - modern violent entertainment with some fantasy, regardless of what era they take place in.

                              I haven't even liked everything he's done but I do appreciate it. There's no one else that does what he does nearly as well as him. If only he would collaborate more -- his best work has been collaborative (PF) or partially re-written (TR and NBK).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mark Tolch View Post


                                Well, yeah....it's all just opinions LOL.

                                If I didn't think that Django was offensive for most of the running time, I sure would have had my mind changed by the time QT had to drag his bloated sweaty ass in front of the camera with his shitty accent talking down to The Blecks.
                                I get that, but ... I don't agree. The scene isn't overly problematic in context. It's his horrific acting that caused my (and I think your) dislike of that scene. His poor accent / line reading makes it much, much more uncomfortable than the actual text itself.

                                Originally posted by Mark Tolch View Post
                                It's entertainment, for sure. But I don't know that, "Damn, imagine if one of these unlucky fellas had a foreign white man come by and give him money and an outfit, and whoo doggey, those Klansmen with the eye holes in the wrong place never would have seen it coming!"
                                DU is not a nod to Blacksploitation. It's a dumbing down of a horrific time in American History that thinks it's somehow acceptable because it mocks Klansmen and plantation owners. The fact that Django was a prisoner of those dumbasses until Waltz came along to save his ass and show him the way makes it even more insulting.

                                IMO, of course.
                                Again, disagree. He doesn't diminish or "rescue" Django. Schultz asks for his help, to find the Brittle Brothers, and enlists him further (with payment!) to pull off the charade to get onto the plantation and claim the reward for the brothers. Everything that comes after he accepts is as a result of Django's choices.

                                And the Klan scenes were, to me, racist Keystone Kops, and pretty damn funny. The Klan are, were, and always will be ridiculous klowns -- why not laugh at them*?

                                Originally posted by Mark Tolch View Post
                                Hateful Eight was just QT trying like hell to make a Western that would be an epic like so many before it, but failing horribly.
                                Yeah, can't really disagree with that. There are some good scenes and dialogue but it's a pretty embarrassing misfire for all that.

                                * - without getting all Wokeified(tm), I do realize and understand that my experiences (and position) are what permit me to have such an attitude. But that's a completely different discussion not really well suited to an Exploitation Film board. heh.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X