Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#587423 - 06/28/11 11:27 AM Re: tarantino's django unchained [Re: Charles Reece]
madget Offline
Member

Registered: 05/11/01
Posts: 4870
Ohhh.. right right right.

K

Top
#587424 - 06/28/11 11:48 AM Re: tarantino's django unchained [Re: madget]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: madget
I don't see any benefit to Tarantino "playing it straight" or why anyone would expect him to?

K


JACKIE BROWN was pretty much played straight and turned out to be a tremendous film. Unfortunately, the public and critics sort of shrugged their shoulders at it because it wasn't jam packed with Tarantino's shtick. His response was to give us KILL BILL and DEATH PROOF.

I was glad to see QT do INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS because it's a legitimately good movie. Sadly, it's probably as good as he'll ever be from now on.

Mike


Edited by MBunge (06/28/11 11:49 AM)

Top
#587425 - 06/28/11 11:58 AM Re: tarantino's django unchained [Re: MBunge]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
IB and JB are my favorites of his. I'll be surprised if he ever tops either.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#587426 - 06/28/11 12:03 PM Re: tarantino's django unchained [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
True. O'Neal played a bumbling idiot, whereas Cruise was supposed to be somewhat sympathetic. EWS is the only Kubrick film, other than Fear & Desire, which I don't much feel like rewatching over and over. (Even if I could, I probably wouldn't watch F&D again.)
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#587468 - 06/30/11 10:12 AM Re: tarantino's django unchained [Re: Charles Reece]
madget Offline
Member

Registered: 05/11/01
Posts: 4870
http://gawker.com/5816417/the-quentin-tarantino-toe+sucking-sex-email-that-will-haunt-your-dreams

K

Top
#592531 - 10/27/11 07:16 PM Re: tarantino's immoral films [Re: madget]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
I figured Madget, at least, wouldn't want to miss the debate over at HU. There are a slew of comments, which begin here.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#592544 - 10/28/11 02:40 AM Re: tarantino's immoral films [Re: Charles Reece]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
I didn't like Jackie Brown. I wanted to cause I like Pam Grier, and Sam Jackon's character was interesting. But the storyline was whatever, and the performances by everyone else weren't that good.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
#592548 - 10/28/11 05:55 AM Re: tarantino's immoral films [Re: Charles Reece]
Stephen Parkes Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/09
Posts: 390
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
Geez, that's a lot of comments.

Of topic, but I notice in there you mentioned A Song of Ice and Fire. Did you see the New York Times article from Ginia Bellafante, where she dismissed Game of Thrones (the TV series) as "boy fiction". Her article produced some interesting responses, including from Annalee Newitz at Io9, who light-heartedly counters that if anything it's chick lit/tv.


Edited by Stephen Parkes (10/28/11 06:00 AM)

Top
#592549 - 10/28/11 08:57 AM Re: tarantino's immoral films [Re: Gerald]
Jimbo Offline
Member

Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 2751
Loc: New Zealand/Canada
Originally Posted By: Gerald
I didn't like Jackie Brown. I wanted to cause I like Pam Grier, and Sam Jackon's character was interesting. But the storyline was whatever, and the performances by everyone else weren't that good.


Neither did I. For me, it was just boring.
_________________________
Walla Walla Bing Bang.

Top
#592553 - 10/28/11 11:12 AM Re: tarantino's immoral films [Re: Jimbo]
madget Offline
Member

Registered: 05/11/01
Posts: 4870
Kinda picking and dabbing through that link ....

Re: Deathproof-

Quote:
"Like I said, the fact that it is so much about womenís relationships is I think itís why critics have tended to find it so unappealing."


I think it's more that all of Tarantino's women are like pseudo-Tarantinos. QT's writing ends up feeling more forced when pushed through a group of young women "just being girls" than it does pushed through a group of fictional gangsters. Tarantino's dialogue is ambitious and strong, but somewhat limited in tonal scope. I know a guy whose chief problem with QT is that "everyone in QT's movies, sounds like QT." I don't fully agree, but I understand where a criticism like that is coming from. I think the males in QT films are able to slip into the skin he gives them a little more naturally and that part of the reason for that is the character of the writing itself. With female characters, you feel them "acting" it out more. It is a less natural extension of their normal behavior/rhythm.

K

Top
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >


Moderator:  Rick Veitch, Steve Conley