quote:

Originally posted by Hasa:
Inglorious Basterds - funny, intentionally and unintentionally, but what a bad movie.

went and saw it anyway.

Awful movie, some SCENES were very good. In particular the opening sequence between Christoher Waltz and Denis Menochet is tense and as subtle as any I have seen. It goes downhill from there. Pitt is interesting, and the only really fully developed character thanks to his monologues about himself and the mysterious 'hang 'em high' style scar on his neck that is never explained, nor even mentioned, while you are left to wonder about its origins.

Another excellent scene featuring Michael Fassbender and Til Schweiger (BTW awesome to see him again since I last got the chance to watch this crazy bastard in SLC Punk) takes place in a basement bar.

In the end you realize that Tarantino is a guy who can write and direct amazing SCENES but in the end his movie as a whole falls short because he is just a terrible storyteller. The script is silly, the plot is non-sensical, and half the time you are checking your watch and thinking that a refill on the popcorn sounds good about now.

There was also the point, after a brutal attack on a theater packed with women and children, that you are left to wonder why you are cheering on a terrorist attack that we would have condemn should we have seen it on CNN. But don't dwell on that, really this movie isn't worth that much deep thought.

We found exactly the opposite, that we hadn't noticed at all that it was 2.5 hours long.

And the concept of a Jewish revenge fantasy that incinerates a couple hundred of the people most responsible for the mass incineration of Jews, women notwithstanding (I didn't notice any children?) doesn't really give me much pause. A. it's a comic book approach, like most Tarantino violence, and B. it's really nothing in the context of a war that saw the Blitz, the firebombing of Dresden, and Hiroshima, all of which targeted civilians.

I haven't seen the movie, but i can comment on Tarantino's style. You see... he's a geek, and a very big one. His area is cinema, and so he is only really interested in making movies (except for a few of his earlier work) in which he gets to explore his particular geekyness. That means his movies are always loaded to the brim with links and references to cinematic history, no matter how obscure they might be. Everything is a play on some cinematic style or theme. That is his purpose, that is what he does.
He can tell a very good story, but he often just lets his geekyness come before that. And you can't blame him for that, because that is the nature of the geek, and we here would probably not act different. Unfortunately this means his movies are certainly not for everybody. You need to be to some degree a cinematic geek yourself in order to really enjoy them.

There is still a hype around Tarantino, mainly fed by critics who are of course cinematic geeks themselves, which makes people feel bad if they don't get his movies. It was probably at its highest around the release of Kill Bill. It was hard finding people who'd admit to not liking it. After sitting through both parts though and wondering why i was supposed to think it so marvelous a movie, i figured out the above and i gave up on watching his new movies. I'm not enough of a geek for cinema to actually enjoy them.

He's a geek. And he loves feet. this film is no exception.

I thought it was awesome.
Then again, I grew up on WW2 movies.

quote:

Originally posted by yer.andreas:
heavyboots... what kind of series is it? Is it worth looking it up? Downloading Renting the episodes?

Defying Gravity is a scifi series where they are starting a multi-year mission of exploration through the solar system. But of course there is also a secret agenda to do with something called "Beta". It is told in flashback mode ala Lost where you frequently see scenes from their training (which started 5 years ago) interspersed with their life aboard the ship.

There's only 6 episodes out so far. Might be worth looking up!

I watched half of the Defying Gravity pilot before giving up.

I wanted to punch all the characters in their made-up faces.
I wanted them to die a fiery death, in the explosion of their rocket.

It just did not work for me.
I hoped it would be a substitute for Virtuality, but it was nowhere near as effective as that.


Then I switched to True Blood and loved every second of it.

Then I watched some Breaking Bad and was amazed at how good it can be (the episode where Badger is busted in the opening scene).

Some Da Vinci's Inquest on top of that, and I had forgotten all about Defying Gravity.

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
Kill Bill...It was hard finding people who'd admit to not liking it

Mate, we chat like every friggin' night.

I think he's a bit of a wanker, but he's good for garnishing dialogue, see The Rock, which Tarantino wrote some dialogue for, which sounds even better when you get Sean Connery to speak it. "I've been in jail longer than Nelshon Mandela, sho maybe you want me to run for preshident." "You're besht? Loshersh whine about their besht. Winnersh go home and fuck the prom queen."

Other than that, I'm with Wanderer. I, too, did sit through both Kill Bills, and couldn't understand how someone sets out to make deliberately bad movies and then gets acclaimed for it. I'm not a fan of the deliberately, perpetually ironic (those whose eternal praises consist mostly of variations of "Oh, man, it's so bad it's good" - which is a cop-out of massive proportions.) Sure, there were some good action sequences, but, if anything, that's production values, not directorial or writing, and if all those B-movies Tarantino and Rodriguez furiously snort coke and masturbate to had one-tenth of the budget Inglourious Basterds did, well, they'd probably end up saving a fortune in tissues in that alternate reality.

All I can see is that he's the only one who dares to be different, except that he's done it long enough for it to be accepted.

I got sick of fuck-knuckle lecturers in the screenwriting classes at uni saying: "No one should ever waste dialogue by having characters talk about popular culture only you care about. Now, on to the next topic: why Tarantino is awesome."

Which I suppose begs the question: when the movie's set in WWII, how do have your characters talk about the symbolism of Flavor Flav's clock-on-a-chain or whatever?

quote:

Which I suppose begs the question: when the movie's set in WWII, how do have your characters talk about the symbolism of Flavor Flav's clock-on-a-chain or whatever?

You'd be surprised : they don't discuss any pop culture.
I can't think of any reason why you, lithos, would not enjoy Inglourious Basterds.

i'm sure if one were to check back i'll be repeating myself here. i can't stand tarantino. i squirmed with discomfort the whole way through kill bill part 1, and made it perfectly clear the second it finished i would never ever watch part 2, or anything else he did.

quote:

Originally posted by ArkanGL:

quote:

Which I suppose begs the question: when the movie's set in WWII, how do have your characters talk about the symbolism of Flavor Flav's clock-on-a-chain or whatever?

You'd be surprised : they don't discuss any pop culture.
I can't think of any reason why you, lithos, would not enjoy Inglourious Basterds.

You forget my dislike of wankers...

Might fit in with Nazi propaganda movie I had to make in editing class on Monday, though.

quote:

You forget my dislike of wankers...

quote:

movie I had to make in editing class

- does not compute -

fzzzzt

* smoke rising out of head *

It was done on Macs in Final Cut Express, so it was a fitting theme.

I'm only in that class for fiscal reasons, Ark.

Failing that, you should at least realise that I've already officially learned more than Tarantino.

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
Kill Bill...It was hard finding people who'd admit to not liking it

You have forgotten a few threads of yore (but then so has the search function).

quote:

Originally posted by King Real:
i'm sure if one were to check back i'll be repeating myself here. i can't stand tarantino. i squirmed with discomfort the whole way through kill bill part 1, and made it perfectly clear the second it finished i would never ever watch part 2, or anything else he did.

I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, with a few reservations. Jackie Brown bored the hell out of me. I think because everything happened so slooooowly you were supposed to feel it was a more considered or subtle film, but it was really just Pulp Fiction remade at half the speed. Kill Bill part 1 was a smirky geeky fetishy rubbishy scrapbook of scenes that he loves from other movies all mooshed together into an 'homage' that was an endurance test. I too left the cinema boiling mad and vowed never to pay to see another one of his narcissistic tributes to the schlock of his formative years.

Yes, his films are very pretty. No, that isn't nearly enough.

I dunno. I still like both Kill Bill films. Tarantino is a mixed bag, but in general I like the fact he goes for "epic" even if he occasionally falls short. (How short is obviously a matter of some controversy, lol...)

I never had a problem with him.
I get what he does. And it definitely works for me. Every time.

when reservoir dogs came out i was working on the moon (or at least sufficiently far away from a cinema that i entirely missed it). i was back when pulp fiction came out. i caught them both, together, as a double bill. there was huge hype. all the student events were selling posters, the student nights were playing the soundtrack. i saw the two films and thought, hmm, shrug, yeah, its ok. i managed to miss jackie brown from a lack of interest, but thought kill bill looked like it had potential. but that dialogue made me want to slap uma thurman silly!

quote:

Originally posted by ArkanGL:.
I get what he does. And it definitely works for me. Every time.

Sure. George Lucas. Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller; geeks displaying for the benefit and admiration of other geeks. If you speak that language you're supposed to admire and envy the breadth and depth of their command of the lingo and be stroked by the way they do all the things you would do if you were them.

If you don't speak that language all you hear is peacocks squawking.

quote:

Sure. George Lucas. Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller; geeks displaying for the benefit and admiration of other geeks. If you speak that language you're supposed to admire and envy the breadth and depth of their command of the lingo and be stroked by the way they do all the things you would do if you were them.

George Lucas? GEORGE LUCAS?!?

Ho hum, what? Tarantino? Usually a fun ticket. Anywayz.....

Caught more DR WHO! Was thinking of going back and trying to watch all the older episodes, but there's nearly 800! Fuck! Stupid longest running scifi show ever. Nothing better to waste time on than the antics of that crazy Timelord, eh?

Then caught a nice little documentary on marijuana prohibition, told from POV of BC Canadians: THE UNION - BUSINESS BEHIND GETTING HIGH. Some interesting perspectives on the thought crime drug war.

quote:

Originally posted by ArkanGL:

quote:

Which I suppose begs the question: when the movie's set in WWII, how do have your characters talk about the symbolism of Flavor Flav's clock-on-a-chain or whatever?

You'd be surprised : they don't discuss any pop culture.
I can't think of any reason why you, lithos, would not enjoy Inglourious Basterds.

Agreed! I was worried about that, going in, but the only thing I thought might be anachronistic was "Mexican standoff," because I simply don't know the origin of the term.

ETA: The internets inform me it's been in use sincen 1891, so I guess that works