[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 27 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Django isn't a spiritual successor to Roots, it's Super Fly meets Blazing Saddles meets spaghetti western.

Except what it is supposed to be is an homage to the original 1966 Italian Western DJANGO. Tarantino is a huge fan of the film, and even appeared in the Japanese homage to it (SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO), but with DJANGO UNCHAINED he set out to take one idea from that tale (the aspect of the lone wandering man seeking revenge) and the fact that (at the time) it was very violent...and then threw all the typical Tarantino stuff into it making it some kind of bastardized homage to the original film that disrespects it by trying to add to much the recipe. the '66 film is a very simple one, and from what I hear of Tarantino's film, it's much more complex than it needs to be and is long winded when the dialogue in the original is short, to the point, and sparse. Again, what I hear from people is that if you approach this as a film that owes something to its name/story-sake...then you walk out thinking Tarantino is full of his own windbaggery...and if you don't it's just a very disjointed film of his repertoire that fails to do much more than be violent and talky with 60's cinematography sensibilities.

If he wasn't making a proper homage to DJANGO...then why call it that? No, this is Tarantino full up to his eyeballs of his own self-worth...and he truly thinks that he can make films that reference or remake classics and I'm convinced he actually thinks he's doing them better...

Re, your second point: I'm fully willing to accept that this film isn't for me...but I'm also not going to pretend that Tarantino isn't full of himself and thinks he's contributing something to current cinema that will last long...he thinks he's Cecil B. Demille or David Lean or Akira Kurosawa....but he's not even a poor man's Sam Peckinpah..and his films will be remembered as cult faves and that's it, but not for actually contributing to cinema in general as a medium. He swims in his own little comfort pond and makes films he wants to see (mainly stuff that references the 70's and 80's), doesn't push himself, and doesn't even reign himself in to stop jabbering dialogue long before it becomes stale.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 27 January 2013 - 11:53 PM

[masan's saddle]

QuickTidal, on 27 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

worrywort, on 27 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Django isn't a spiritual successor to Roots, it's Super Fly meets Blazing Saddles meets spaghetti western.

Except what it is supposed to be is an homage to the original 1966 Italian Western DJANGO. Tarantino is a huge fan of the film, and even appeared in the Japanese homage to it (SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO), but with DJANGO UNCHAINED he set out to take one idea from that tale (the aspect of the lone wandering man seeking revenge) and the fact that (at the time) it was very violent...and then threw all the typical Tarantino stuff into it making it some kind of bastardized homage to the original film that disrespects it by trying to add to much the recipe. the '66 film is a very simple one, and from what I hear of Tarantino's film, it's much more complex than it needs to be and is long winded when the dialogue in the original is short, to the point, and sparse. Again, what I hear from people is that if you approach this as a film that owes something to its name/story-sake...then you walk out thinking Tarantino is full of his own windbaggery...and if you don't it's just a very disjointed film of his repertoire that fails to do much more than be violent and talky with 60's cinematography sensibilities.

If he wasn't making a proper homage to DJANGO...then why call it that? No, this is Tarantino full up to his eyeballs of his own self-worth...and he truly thinks that he can make films that reference or remake classics and I'm convinced he actually thinks he's doing them better...

Re, your second point: I'm fully willing to accept that this film isn't for me...but I'm also not going to pretend that Tarantino isn't full of himself and thinks he's contributing something to current cinema that will last long...he thinks he's Cecil B. Demille or David Lean or Akira Kurosawa....but he's not even a poor man's Sam Peckinpah..and his films will be remembered as cult faves and that's it, but not for actually contributing to cinema in general as a medium. He swims in his own little comfort pond and makes films he wants to see (mainly stuff that references the 70's and 80's), doesn't push himself, and doesn't even reign himself in to stop jabbering dialogue long before it becomes stale.

This pretty much sums up my opinion of Tarantino post Kill Bill V1. Inglorious Basterds was overly indulgent, overly long and quite frankly boring.

I turned Death Proof off after about 45 mins through sheer boredom. Don't get me wrong, I will always have a soft spot for QT because Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were ground breaking whilst Jackie Brown and Kill Bill V1 were entertaining. IMO since then he has become obsessed with his own movie fetishes and become a bit of a one trick pony. I may see Django Unchained but I have a horrible feeling that I will sit there thinking
" Yeh Quentin I get it, I got it 10 years ago."

[worry]

That's a pretty wrong-headed diatribe IMO. It's not up to you to say what Django Unchained is "supposed to be", and if he said anything to that effect you seem to be taking it too literally. So it has a namesake and a starting reference point, sure; it's in no way a remake any more than IB was, and "homage" isn't a straitjacket on the imagination.

On the other point, he's already in the canon of all-time great filmmakers, he doesn't have to prove himself further. I don't presume to know what he thinks of himself (especially whether he thinks he's out-doing his heroes, which seems like a bizarre proposition to make about such an obvious cinephile), but I couldn't care less about his ego any more than I would Woody Allen's or Spike Lee's. Means nothing to me. And I'm not pretending, I actually saw Django Unchained, I know which elements worked for me and which didn't, and whether I think it will stand the test of time.

And amph, this is an aside sorta, but I was thinking about what you were saying about how his older films felt to you vs. his newer ones, and then I was thinking about Martin McDonagh and how big a booster of Seven Psychopaths you were this past year. QT's an obvious influence, but McDonagh certainly has his own voice and POV (as opposed to the many Pulp Fiction-alikes throughout the 90s and up through now in every straight-to-DVD bin). I do think QT's just on another tip these days, and for that old fix you just gotta go for McDonagh...but that's not so bad is it? He's putting his own stamp on it, and he's doing it well all-around.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 28 January 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

That's a pretty wrong-headed diatribe IMO. It's not up to you to say what Django Unchained is "supposed to be", and if he said anything to that effect you seem to be taking it too literally. So it has a namesake and a starting reference point, sure; it's in no way a remake any more than IB was, and "homage" isn't a straitjacket on the imagination.

On the other point, he's already in the canon of all-time great filmmakers, he doesn't have to prove himself further. I don't presume to know what he thinks of himself (especially whether he thinks he's out-doing his heroes, which seems like a bizarre proposition to make about such an obvious cinephile), but I couldn't care less about his ego any more than I would Woody Allen's or Spike Lee's. Means nothing to me. And I'm not pretending, I actually saw Django Unchained, I know which elements worked for me and which didn't, and whether I think it will stand the test of time.

It's not up to me, no....but he had no right to name it DJANGO anything then. None. If he wasn't going to be at least remotely reverent to the source material, then why name it that? I'll tell you why...to get fans of the classic film excited about HIS version. End of story. That's my argument. He could have named it twenty different things and had the main character named anything else...but he didn't. He was GOING for homage...but instead just infuses his own crap into it and calls it good. IB was QT's attempt at a 60's WWII film...but he wasn't mimicking a specific film and instead chose a "genre"...AKA it was only going for a feeling...not an audience stolen. Put it this way, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN is an homage to THE SEVEN SAMURAI...it reveres the original, while blazing its own trail.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 27 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

If he wasn't making a proper homage to DJANGO...then why call it that?

I'm not gonna disagree that Tarantino is a massive, self-important bellend, because he is, but on this point - the name, and a few other things about the film, are in homage to the fact that that's where he got the idea and that he loved it, but he was never trying to remake it or homage just it, same way Inglourious Basterds was never a remake of Inglorious Bastards.

Also, as much as he can be accused of ripping off many, many films, I think he does genuinely enjoy using his name to get people to discover the originals.

Quote

.and his films will be remembered as cult faves and that's it, but not for actually contributing to cinema in general as a medium.

I think you're just flat out wrong there. He's had a massive effect on the medium - in many ways an effect of popularisation rather than pioneering, in that he brought things to mass audiences rather than inventing them himself - but it's still there. Pulp Fiction is arguably the most influential film of the last twenty years (I think only The Matrix and Toy Story really have a shout to be viable competition for it, and The Matrix was even less original than anything Tarantino's done). He was the frontrunner of the pop-culture referentialism which has made geekiness cool, he popularised fractured narratives in Western Cinema, and he brought dialogue-heavy cinema in from the cold and to the front of the class.

[worry]

QuickTidal, on 28 January 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

It's not up to me, no....but he had no right to name it DJANGO anything then. None.

I can't even connect with this line of thinking. Like at all, it's alien glyph to me. (And I don't mean that dismissively, even if that's its ultimate effect cuz I can't really address it).

I won't tell you how to spend your money or anything, or complain that you're working on hearsay (since I imagine the people you've talked to know you, so the information they gave you was in that light). But I will say once you see the movie, if you do, down the line, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about it.

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 28 January 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

And amph, this is an aside sorta, but I was thinking about what you were saying about how his older films felt to you vs. his newer ones, and then I was thinking about Martin McDonagh and how big a booster of Seven Psychopaths you were this past year. QT's an obvious influence, but McDonagh certainly has his own voice and POV (as opposed to the many Pulp Fiction-alikes throughout the 90s and up through now in every straight-to-DVD bin). I do think QT's just on another tip these days, and for that old fix you just gotta go for McDonagh...but that's not so bad is it? He's putting his own stamp on it, and he's doing it well all-around.

I saw Seven Psychopaths again a couple weeks ago - with subtitles. It really is a fun movie and somehow adds an endearing touch to a collection of murderers and evil people. Despite its ouroboros-like and potentially self-indulgent plot, it doesn't lose track of the weird love that the psychopaths have for certain people and for the world at large.

I agree with you about Tarantino's trip and my own sensibilities not matching up. That's something I do have to be aware of and avoid condemning a movie for.

[worry]

On a totally different note, watched The Queen of Versailles (it's streaming on Netflix now). I'd call it a must-watch, and then I'd urge you to cross-reference it with Nico's recent post in that Good vs. Evil people thread.

[tiam]

Watched lincoln yesterday and zero dark thirty. Lincoln is an excellent film i would recommend it. Day lewis, fields, jones and the rest of the cast were excellent though as it was nearing the end i was mindful of a post id read on here about it should have ended 5 minutes sooner. I have to agree it would have been a brilliant place to end it.

Zero dark thirty was good and chastain was excellent but it didnt grab me in the same way hurt locker did. Still very good and well worth a watch.

[QuickTidal]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 28 January 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

though as it was nearing the end i was mindful of a post id read on here about it should have ended 5 minutes sooner. I have to agree it would have been a brilliant place to end it.

Yep. It would have just been SO iconic with that as the last shot.

I was saying last night to my gf that if I ever own it on BRD, I'll hit power on the player after that shot and imagine it ended there. LOL

[amphibian]

I dunno. I think the coda of the speech is a good thing. Instead of the final impression of him being a person who was murdered, we get some of the better words ever spoken by a leader.

And a subtle reminder that the Reconstruction was so thoroughly fucked up and would have been very different under Lincoln.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

I dunno. I think the coda of the speech is a good thing. Instead of the final impression of him being a person who was murdered, we get some of the better words ever spoken by a leader.

And a subtle reminder that the Reconstruction was so thoroughly fucked up and would have been very different under Lincoln.

Quite a solid point...and story-wise I think that's a good argument. I guess I think filmicly it could have ended on the stairs shot, and after that wonderful line "It's time for me to go. But I would rather stay."...it's just so poignant and it unloaded on me like a tonne of bricks and got me right in the heart.

I can see both aspects...but perhaps that 2nd Innaug speech might have been better served at the beginning...though now you've done gone and made me second guess it Amph...the reconstruction aspect is hard to argue with as an ending point. Perhaps if they'd eliminated the theatre and death scenes...and just jumped from the stairs scene to the 2nd Innaug speech...that might sit better with me.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 27 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

...If he wasn't making a proper homage to DJANGO...then why call it that? ...

Bcs he's Quentin Tarantino and he's made a career of pulling bits and pieces from old movies and making them into new movies and calling them whatever the fuck he wants and making bajillions of dollars doing it.

...or put another way, why NOT call it that. Hollywood as an institution has made a practice of taking old things and remaking them into new things that have the barest or no resemblance to the source material, often because the source material doesn't age well or wasn't all that good the first time around but still draws some level of fond nostalgia. And often poorly.

Tarantino does this better than +/- 95% of the rest of the moviemaking world, so who cares if his Django isn't a shot by shot repropduction of the original... it's still probably better, tho i say this not having seen the original.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 28 January 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

...If he wasn't making a proper homage to DJANGO...then why call it that? ...

Bcs he's Quentin Tarantino and he's made a career of pulling bits and pieces from old movies and making them into new movies and calling them whatever the fuck he wants and making bajillions of dollars doing it.

...or put another way, why NOT call it that. Hollywood as an institution has made a practice of taking old things and remaking them into new things that have the barest or no resemblance to the source material, often because the source material doesn't age well or wasn't all that good the first time around but still draws some level of fond nostalgia. And often poorly.

Tarantino does this better than +/- 95% of the rest of the moviemaking world, so who cares if his Django isn't a shot by shot repropduction of the original... it's still probably better, tho i say this not having seen the original.

Meh.

The guy rankles me more often than not these days. I think his best films are well behind him. I stand by what I said.

Cold, Black-hearted bastard that I am.

[masan's saddle]

Watched Resident Evil Retribution last night primarily for the porn factor of Milla Jovovich, Michelle" Battle Lesbian" Rodriguez and Sienna Guillory. I was not disappointed, they are all still fit.

The film on the other hand was pure style over substance in an increasingly worsening franchise. Zero plot or dialogue of note it resembled more than ever a cut scene from the game it is based on. The action scenes were pretty good as was the CGI and for that reason, along with the babe factor, it gets 2.5 leather clad vixens out of 5.

Tonight on the other hand I watched Dredd and it was fab. A vast improvement on the Sly Stallone effort of a few years back (on an obviously smaller budget), it did justice to my second favourite 2000AD character (after Rogue Trooper). Urban was a pretty good Dredd with just enough sarcasm to balance the sociopathic adherence to the Law. The exploding headshots and Slo-mo drug scenes were fantastically done and all in all the film looked great. There were some glaring similarities to the plot of The Raid and I'm not sure if there was any " borrowing" going on as Alex Garland wrote the screenplay. I have no issues either way as Block Wars/ riots were pretty widespread in Mega City 1. On a slight downer I thought Lena Headey was weak as the main villain. I maintain the woman couldn't act her way out of a cardboard box and that includes her wooden portrayal of Cersei Lannister, Meh.

Anyway great film and I hear they are planning on a follow up, 4 slo-mo, gravity effected, high impact exploding meat sacks out of 5

[Khellendros]

To add to the Django discussion, I saw it the other day, and I was surprisingly entertained.

I'm not much of a Tarantino fan (haven't enjoyed anything of his since Jackie Brown), so I suppose I came into this with low expectations, but I got to say, just as a purely entertainment experience, I very much enjoyed it. Unlike with the Hobbit which I also saw recently, the 3 hours didn't feel too long (just about). Christoph Waltz was terrific, an out-and-out scene stealer. If anything, Jamie Foxx was the most 'disappointing' (though really he was good too), but I think that had more to do with his character being the 'straight man' to everybody else's weirdo. Some of the scenes were fairly harrowing, like the mandingo fight, but nothing seemed unnecessary per se (the gun violence was over the top as always, but that was to be expected).

Any supposed references to past films (and I'm sure there were many) or whatever went straight over my head I'm sure, but perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much, because I just took it for what it was at face value.

[QuickTidal]

masan, on 31 January 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

Tonight on the other hand I watched Dredd and it was fab. A vast improvement on the Sly Stallone effort of a few years back (on an obviously smaller budget), it did justice to my second favourite 2000AD character (after Rogue Trooper). Urban was a pretty good Dredd with just enough sarcasm to balance the sociopathic adherence to the Law. The exploding headshots and Slo-mo drug scenes were fantastically done and all in all the film looked great. There were some glaring similarities to the plot of The Raid and I'm not sure if there was any " borrowing" going on as Alex Garland wrote the screenplay. I have no issues either way as Block Wars/ riots were pretty widespread in Mega City 1. On a slight downer I thought Lena Headey was weak as the main villain. I maintain the woman couldn't act her way out of a cardboard box and that includes her wooden portrayal of Cersei Lannister, Meh.

Anyway great film and I hear they are planning on a follow up, 4 slo-mo, gravity effected, high impact exploding meat sacks out of 5

DREDD was written before THE RAID...THE RAID just came out first.

[Silencer]

Just watched "Seven Psychopaths" - that was a great film. Good acting and a really engaging, sorta twisty plot that jumped itself around enough to keep things fresh the whole way through. Plus, Christopher Walken.

[Slow Ben]

Watched it last night as well. Enjoyed it very much. Sam Rockwell cracks me the hell up.

[blackzoid]

Saw Zero Dark Thirty last night. I'm shocked at how average and utterly bland this film was, considering the praise it's getting.
Is it because I'm non-American and have no real emotional connection to the effective targeting of Bin Laden? Ironically considering all the controversy, the best parts were the torture scenes, as at least in those parts the film was emotionally engaging. After that, bland all the way. Its not terrible mind you but just average. And considering the expectations I had, thats a failure.

Too long and would have made a much better subject for a documentary rather then a film. Baffled at the praise. No where near as good as the Hurt Locker.