Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reservoir Dogs Coming To UHD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    null
    Senior Member

  • null
    replied
    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
    All that to say that I appreciate Tarantino's thoughtfulness more often than not but think that he stepped over a line with DJANGO UNCHAINED. Maybe it's hypocritical for me to be okay with him fiddling with a nasty real-life murder or the holocaust but not with slavery but that's just how it shakes out with me. To be clear, I'm a fan of his who just happens to think he failed miserably in a few instances in his career.
    Ok. So, we're not really so much in disagreement about content as we are about tone?

    Leave a comment:

  • Spaghetti Monkey
    Senior Member

  • Spaghetti Monkey
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt H. View Post
    I'd argue that INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is his most mature (and best) film to date.
    I only watched it once when it was relatively new, but I dug it a lot. I also fall in the camp of not getting the fuss about JACKIE BROWN. Really need to re-watch it one of these days to see if my opinion has changed.

    Leave a comment:

  • Matt H.
    Senior Member

  • Matt H.
    replied
    I'd argue that INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is his most mature (and best) film to date.

    Leave a comment:

  • Randy G
    Senior Member

  • Randy G
    replied
    I think a lot of the brilliance in Jackie Brown is derived from Elmore Leonard.

    Has to be more than a coincidence that Tarantino's most mature and emotionally complex film is based on someone else's work.

    Obviously Tarantino does a great job adapting it, I haven't read Rum Punch but apparently the film is quite different, but Leonard's virtues as a writer are pretty clear in the film.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dom D
    replied
    I've got no issue with the Bruce Lee fight. It's one of those absurd bits of Hollywood legend that because Bruce Lee looks the goods in a movie that he could take on beat anyone in the world in a fair fight. He's 5'6 and looks like he weighs 120 pounds. You don't need to know much to know much about the fight game to know that Bruce is very limited in the range of fighters he could take on. Hell, probably even if the fight wss between Brad Pitt and Lee rather than Booth and Lee, Pitt would have stood a chance.

    What is a bit rough is how much of an arsehole Tarantino makes Lee. I don't know much about Lee but I hope he was a complete jerk to get that treatment on screen. A quick google on whether Lee thought he could fight Ali brings up this quote from Lee: “Look at my hand. That’s a little Chinese hand. He’d kill me.

    Leave a comment:

  • Toyboy
    like a hole in the head

  • Toyboy
    replied
    Originally posted by null View Post
    See Matt H's (and my previous) comment: He makes entertainments. He's not attempting, nor claiming, to solve any societal issue or problem.
    Or see my own comment because I'm saying the same thing you are. In the bit you quoted there you'll notice I take no issue with him for being that way, but instead point out an example without an actual judgment attached. I'm fully aware that when it comes to the creation of his films he has little to no interest in real world concerns and I am actually on his side when it comes to his defense of the Bruce Lee moment. I'll reiterate my take on it: he wanted to show us that Cliff Booth isn't to be fucked with and the way Tarantino thought to do that was to have him pick a fight with Bruce Lee. People came down on him for it and he told those people to suck his dick. That's not my opinion - he did that on Joe Rogan's podcast. After he said that I went back and watched that scene again and A) it's a 2-out-of-3 falls contest and each man gets in 1 fall so QT isn't necessarily presenting Lee in a bad light, just underprepared for Booth's prowess (ignoring the fact that Booth isn't a real person and this never actually happened), and B) it serves a specific function in the film and that is to allow the audience to think "Oh, fuck. These evil hippies are about to get fucked up" when they raid Rick's home at the end.

    All that to say that I appreciate Tarantino's thoughtfulness more often than not but think that he stepped over a line with DJANGO UNCHAINED. Maybe it's hypocritical for me to be okay with him fiddling with a nasty real-life murder or the holocaust but not with slavery but that's just how it shakes out with me. To be clear, I'm a fan of his who just happens to think he failed miserably in a few instances in his career.
    Toyboy
    like a hole in the head
    Last edited by Toyboy; 09-27-2022, 04:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • null
    Senior Member

  • null
    replied
    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
    Thinking about my assessment of Tarantino's arguable lack of humanity, I think that in a more specific way his only concern in terms of his characters and their actions is how they serve the mechanics of his film. Again, not unique to him or his films but he holds fast to the ethos. Going back to Siskel & Ebert, I think it was in their review of JACKIE BROWN that they talked about the scenes between Grier and Forster and how we're not only seeing two middle aged characters discussing getting older but we're getting a glimpse of two middle aged actors doing the same. There's something happening outside the frame for the audience to pick up on, but I don't believe QT intended that. He's only dealing with what's happening inside the frame and the meta-text is accidental.
    From my vantage point, there is no possible way that this wasn't intentional. It's a core emotional thread underlying the entire relationship, both subtextual and literal. Having said that, I also have no idea whether this was brought to the scene by the actors interpreting the text or whether QT suggested it, but based on available evidence ... I think it was the actors.

    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
    Another example of this is with the hot water he found himself in a few years ago with the Bruce Lee scene in ONCE UPON A TIME. His only concern there was to show that Cliff Booth is both a lunkhead and a bad-ass by having him pick a fight with the toughest person in Hollywood at the time. It's all a set-up for Booth having to take on the most notorious killers in the 20th Century later on and the director is not at all worried about the optics of a white man throwing an Asian man into a car door. Of course, he couldn't have also predicted that the problematic nature of this image would be multiplied by 1,000 two years after his movie came out but regardless, he gets very defiant whenever he's called out for this kind of stuff with his defense usually being "It's just a fucking movie, okay."
    See Matt H's (and my previous) comment: He makes entertainments. He's not attempting, nor claiming, to solve any societal issue or problem. There are very few people in his movies that I actually want to hang out with, but I watch in fascination as they go about their lives, and have for close to thirty years. Not every movie has been great (hell, Death Proof isn't even good, IMO) but there have been great QT scenes and/or dialogue in every one.

    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
    Obviously, it's not his job as an artist to be humanistic and his stock-in-trade is often presenting the worst in humanity, but that brighter stuff does poke through occasionally as in the dialogue between the older characters in JACKIE BROWN or Mia finally telling her joke in PULP FICTION or Bill making sandwiches in KILL BILL. Maybe it's a byproduct of the era in which they take place but his westerns veer too far into the muck for me and feel almost more like Eli Roth movies in a way.
    That's an interesting take. I guess we all have directors or content that we don't gel with. Yours is (somewhat) Tarantino. Mine is absolutely Eli Roth. Amusing coincidence.

    Leave a comment:

  • agent999
    Senior Member

  • agent999
    replied
    I always suspected the cutaway was due to the effect not working. I've seen pictures that look like an onion bhaji stuck on the side of his head.

    Leave a comment:

  • null
    Senior Member

  • null
    replied
    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
    In terms of the subject at hand and the artwork for this RESERVOIR DOGS release, I think it's a little odd considering that there's a deliberate cutaway from the ear removal in the film. I know we see the aftermath with a juicy closeup of the wound and Mr. Blonde carrying the ear, but this would be like a slipcase for PSYCHO that features a painting of Janet Leigh with blood squirting from her carotid artery and a butcher knife on the clear plastic that goes in and out of her neck and chest as you move it.
    Don't have time at the moment to respond to your earlier post (I will later), but have to say I am 1000% in agreement with you here. I specifically won't buy it for exactly the reason(s) you outlined. Glad it's just a (to me) silly completist thing, and not the only option.

    Leave a comment:

  • Toyboy
    like a hole in the head

  • Toyboy
    replied
    In terms of the subject at hand and the artwork for this RESERVOIR DOGS release, I think it's a little odd considering that there's a deliberate cutaway from the ear removal in the film. I know we see the aftermath with a juicy closeup of the wound and Mr. Blonde carrying the ear, but this would be like a slipcase for PSYCHO that features a painting of Janet Leigh with blood squirting from her carotid artery and a butcher knife on the clear plastic that goes in and out of her neck and chest as you move it.

    Leave a comment:

  • Matt H.
    Senior Member

  • Matt H.
    replied
    I've always thought of Tarantino movies as entertainment and really nothing to analyze too deeply. All of his movies are really about the same thing: the love of cinema itself.

    On the other hand, I do love the discussion.

    Leave a comment:

  • Toyboy
    like a hole in the head

  • Toyboy
    replied
    Thinking about my assessment of Tarantino's arguable lack of humanity, I think that in a more specific way his only concern in terms of his characters and their actions is how they serve the mechanics of his film. Again, not unique to him or his films but he holds fast to the ethos. Going back to Siskel & Ebert, I think it was in their review of JACKIE BROWN that they talked about the scenes between Grier and Forster and how we're not only seeing two middle aged characters discussing getting older but we're getting a glimpse of two middle aged actors doing the same. There's something happening outside the frame for the audience to pick up on, but I don't believe QT intended that. He's only dealing with what's happening inside the frame and the meta-text is accidental.

    Another example of this is with the hot water he found himself in a few years ago with the Bruce Lee scene in ONCE UPON A TIME. His only concern there was to show that Cliff Booth is both a lunkhead and a bad-ass by having him pick a fight with the toughest person in Hollywood at the time. It's all a set-up for Booth having to take on the most notorious killers in the 20th Century later on and the director is not at all worried about the optics of a white man throwing an Asian man into a car door. Of course, he couldn't have also predicted that the problematic nature of this image would be multiplied by 1,000 two years after his movie came out but regardless, he gets very defiant whenever he's called out for this kind of stuff with his defense usually being "It's just a fucking movie, okay."

    Obviously, it's not his job as an artist to be humanistic and his stock-in-trade is often presenting the worst in humanity, but that brighter stuff does poke through occasionally as in the dialogue between the older characters in JACKIE BROWN or Mia finally telling her joke in PULP FICTION or Bill making sandwiches in KILL BILL. Maybe it's a byproduct of the era in which they take place but his westerns veer too far into the muck for me and feel almost more like Eli Roth movies in a way.
    Toyboy
    like a hole in the head
    Last edited by Toyboy; 09-27-2022, 08:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Randy G
    Senior Member

  • Randy G
    replied
    I've found things to like in all QT's films but Django and Kill Bill II in particular are his weakest for me. Inglorious Basterds has grown on me although I still find elements of the post-inferno ending very flawed.

    Once Upon a Time is my favourite film of his since Jackie Brown, he's good at the atmospheric hang out film.

    Surprised that I've never seen him namecheck Altman as his best film have that loose, slightly stoned and meandering feel that Altman was a master at.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mark Tolch
    Senior Member

  • Mark Tolch
    replied
    One thing is for sure, the man's movies are polarizing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dom D
    replied
    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.
    No!!!! Hateful 8 is a hangout movie. Like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. I love it. 3 hours in a barn with the most fun actors of this generation running great lines. I can sit down in front of that movie anytime and just drift off with it. Dogs and Pulp are hard to go past but if they weren't as amazingly good as they are H8 would be would be my favourite.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X