ghostrunner wrote:I guess I gotta see IB at some point. Nothing about that trailer looks that good to me though. Seems like some Jewish revenge fantasy, and the scene in the previews with Hitler having a hissy fit just seemed ridiculous. Like it's what we'd hope WWII is like, and killing Nazis is justifiable fun. The justifiable I can agree with, it's the fun that bothers me. In this one the whole Nazi thing seems like an excuse to enjoy what I'd imagine is extremely gratuitous violence. Which I'm fine with in some cases, but Tarantino always seems to revel in it too much for my taste.
I'm not sure I can like it, I'm so predisposed against him by now. Or maybe I've just got a stick up my ass. I'll see it sometime.
You would be surprised at the level of irony and subversion in regards to the whole "violent revenge fantasy" aspect.
No level of irony would surprise me in a Tarantino movie. That's part of what bugs me about his movies. They're drenched in it.
I really do hate to rag on the guy constantly. He experiments, he tries new things (or things he borrowed from obscure sources). I don't mind him being loose with history or using anachronisms, or any of that. And there are parts of his movies that are just brilliant. But something about the combination of all the things he does doesn't add up for me. My favorite movie he's been involved with is True Romance. He wrote the script and someone else directed it, which is how I wish it went more often.
ghostrunner wrote:I guess I gotta see IB at some point. Nothing about that trailer looks that good to me though. Seems like some Jewish revenge fantasy, and the scene in the previews with Hitler having a hissy fit just seemed ridiculous. Like it's what we'd hope WWII is like, and killing Nazis is justifiable fun. The justifiable I can agree with, it's the fun that bothers me. In this one the whole Nazi thing seems like an excuse to enjoy what I'd imagine is extremely gratuitous violence. Which I'm fine with in some cases, but Tarantino always seems to revel in it too much for my taste.
I'm not sure I can like it, I'm so predisposed against him by now. Or maybe I've just got a stick up my ass. I'll see it sometime.
Sounds like were basically on the same page regarding QT. I agree. This premise plus Tarantino seems so indulgent to me. I'll definitely see it though. Seeing what an incredibly insufferable dork he is, and being just as irritated as entertained (usually a great measure of both) with his movies makes all Tarantino movies an experience for me.
I just stocked up on bootlegs, but this one hasn't shown up yet.
im onboard with saigon and ghostrunner in regards to QT. i should have been more specific regarding "hype". TDK was much bigger overall but the immediate post-release response from internet movie - sorry - "film" buffs towards IB has been overwhelming. "best movie ive seen in years" "better than pulp fiction" etc. film school rejects are blowing loads over this thing. not to say they didnt for tdk but tdk fanboys werent utterly insufferable.
maybe it is that good, lets give it another month.
ghostrunner wrote:No level of irony would surprise me in a Tarantino movie. That's part of what bugs me about his movies. They're drenched in it.
I really do hate to rag on the guy constantly. He experiments, he tries new things (or things he borrowed from obscure sources). I don't mind him being loose with history or using anachronisms, or any of that. And there are parts of his movies that are just brilliant. But something about the combination of all the things he does doesn't add up for me. My favorite movie he's been involved with is True Romance. He wrote the script and someone else directed it, which is how I wish it went more often.
I suppose I should be more specific - yeah, Tarantino likes irony and being meta and all that, but specifically, in the case of Inglourious Basterds, it's irony with regards to how what is basically sold as a violent revenge fantasy very astutely recognizes how sadistic and disgusting the actions of the "basterds" really are. That doesn't mean you'll like it of course for a number of different reasons, especially if you don't care for his style (I am the complete opposite of you when it comes to him, True Romance is my least favorite project of his I've seen that he had a real hand in), but it's definitely not of the "torture porn" variety.
I really liked True Romance. Probably my favorite of that genre but I've only seen a handful. I liked Tarantino initially but quickly became weary of him. Of course, I became weary of Scorsese eventually too.
well, thanks to suggestions from the few members of flashchat last night, i watched "chinatown" last night...it was a good lil' mystery movie..."that's chinatown"...crazy to see jack so young looking
A good western. Karl Malden, Brando. Slim Pickens was great. and Ben Johnson. This movie with little polishing and better editing would be great, seems like it moved at an odd pace at times. I hear Brando wanted it 5 hours long... But still well-above average and under-appreciated -lots of elements of future spaghetti westerns.
The Third Man wrote:That doesn't mean you'll like it of course for a number of different reasons, especially if you don't care for his style
Or hate really good movies.
I made a horrible decision tonight. Went to see a late show of District 9, however I was like ten minutes late and walking into a movie late is sort of a pet peeve. Anyway, the last movie showing was Gamer and I was told that "the guy from Dexter" was in it, so I figured it had to be OK because he does good work right? Wrong. At some point it got past bizarre and uncomfortable and the plot holes went from large to enourmous and the dialogue got so cheezy that we, and the guys in front of us, starting audibly cracking up.
Really one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but all in all not a bad time.
Watched the '32 and '41 versions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde after reading the Stevenson book last week. Initially, after the first 30 minutes of the '32 version I was a little put off by the storyline, which was nothing at all like the book. Where did all these women come from? But after Hyde made his first entrance, I thoroughly enjoyed the final hour. Frederic March's Oscar win was well deserved, IMO, and Miriam Hopkins was wonderful as well.
The '41 version pretty much followed the same screenplay that was written for the '32 version (or possibly John Barrymore's version?) and the first half hour possibly kept my interest about the same as the '32 version. Hyde's entrance, however, was a letdown compared to the earlier version. Spencer Tracy was great, as usual, but for some reason they opted for makeup that just looked like Tracy after being stung by a couple bees, rather than the epitome of evil. How did Ingrid Bergman not tell that Hyde was Dr. Jekyll? Bergman and the unbelievably cute Lana Turner were both great and it seems weird not giving much of a recommendation for a film with 3 good performances but I just think you'd be better served by watching the '32 version.
1932: **** (out of 5)
1941: ***
Next Tarantino Movie An Homage To Beloved Tarantino Movies Of Director's Youth
SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 | ISSUE 45•37
MADRID—While attending a European press junket Monday for his film Inglourious Basterds, director Quentin Tarantino announced that his next project, Jack Rabbit Slim, will go into production this fall, and will be an homage to his favorite director and screenwriter of all time: Quentin Tarantino.
In one sequence Tarantino called "distinctly Tarantino-esque," Slim delivers an unexpectedly poetic monologue on cheeseburgers while dancing to an Ennio Morricone instrumental with a drug-addled Uma Thurman. And in the film's stunning climax, Slim remembers his training with a martial arts expert in China and then exacts revenge on the film's antagonists: a Nazi colonel, a Hollywood stuntman, and a Los Angeles syndicate of 88 yakuza warriors.
