|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 10, 2022 15:03:52 GMT -8
I mean, it certainly hasn't been praised at the level of the first two films, but there seems to be a surge in respect for the film in recent years, and particularly right after that latest director's cut was released. (Apparently it doesn't change that much from the original or the "final director's cut" released on video in the '90s, apart from a few substantial tweaks to the ending.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 10, 2022 15:13:36 GMT -8
It's got around a 6-out-of-10 average on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'd say the overall response was mixed-at-best. And everyone agrees that Sophia Coppola gave a very bad performance in it (her dad shouldn't have put her in that position).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 12, 2022 10:34:34 GMT -8
Seems like it had a slightly higher rep on IMDb and Letterboxd. But hey, don't count on me for reliable info about the Godfather fandom. Anyway, I've now seen all the Quentin Tarantino films, and have ranked them to my personal preferences. All in all, there are certain tics of his that I dislike - notably how his films tend to overindulge on filmbro vibes just for the heck of it. Surprisingly, the violence no longer bugs me as it used to - perhaps because it's so over-the-top to the point of telling on its own ridiculousness, particularly in his more recent (and often more experimental) films. To that end, I didn't care very much for his '90s work, which - innovative for their time as they are - tend to break the cinematic rules in less interesting and unexpected ways than his 21st-century films. But obviously, we couldn't get the latter without the former! Anyway... 10. Reservoir Dogs - Yeah, this was never going to be my bag. It's mercifully short by Tarantino standards (99 minutes, credits included) and is interesting for its early signs of his gutsier formula-breaking, but the characters remain staid and unappealing throughout, ironically colorless in spite of their names. Great soundtrack, but that can only go so far. 9. Pulp Fiction - I don't remember very much of this film, except for how you all fooled me into thinking I would like it. But it's okay, all is forgiven. Many of the same problems as Rezz Dogs, with the boring story not helped by the lengthy runtime. The last ten minutes are excellent, but that didn't make up for all the work it took to get there. 8. Death Proof - Widely considered Tarantino's worst film, and I can understand why - it certainly isn't aiming for artistic innovation the way many of his other films are (not that any part of Grindhouse was meant to be taken seriously as high art). But while the first forty minutes are a pain to sit through, the film does improve as it goes along, and the third act is highly entertaining. I don't usually laugh at these films, but the final shot is hilarious. 7. Jackie Brown - Tarantino's most subdued film, and certainly his least violent. Great cast, from Pam Grier's central protagonist down to Chris Tucker's all-too-brief bit part... but not nearly enough flavor or intrigue to justify the runtime. Worthwhile but forgettable. 6. Django Unchained - Engaging and lively (though a bit historically inaccurate) accounting of the pre-Civil War South, with great central dynamism from Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz. But the simple story just goes on and on, with the final half-hour needlessly spinning its wheels before the grand conclusion. 5. The Hateful Eight - Okay, this is the last time I'll complain about a film's length here. This is an effective Agatha Christie-style mystery with an entertaining array of actors, but it simply drags along in the middle, and the overall enjoyment is tainted by the film's needlessly mean-spirited edge, particularly in the finale. The dry, measured comedy in the first act - as the characters are introduced one by one - works best. 4. Inglorious Basterds - Another lively and perhaps mildly inaccurate historical drama, as well as perhaps the ultimate exemplar in Tarantino filmbro-ism. (There are some good female characters, though the script's treatment of them speaks to some larger issues.) Some lulls after the opening sequence, but it builds strongly to its wild conclusion. 3. Kill Bill Vol. 2 - Strong conclusion to the Billogy, less manic and more poignant than the first film. It's necessarily more grounded in its treatment of the Bride, and perhaps by necessity less distinctive as a ludicrously slam-bang action thriller. Still pretty eye-popping (haha, see what I did there). 2. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Measured and deliberate for much of its run, and saving the graphic violence for when the story really needs it, this is a meticulous and atmospheric film with a great sense of humor a pair of strong central performances in Pitt and DiCaprio (as well as a mostly quiet but extremely effective role for Margot Robbie). Maintains its tongue-in-cheek tone - and satirical Hollywood edge - right up to the chaotic climax. 1. Kill Bill Vol. 1 - Unapologetically violent, but unabashed in its intentions, serving as a tribute to all sorts of classic action genres - Westerns, wuxia, anime - and an incredible action film on its own. Unrestrained, unbelievable, and never pretends to be anything but. Terrific performances from all the leading ladies, with Thurman firing on all physical and emotional cylinders.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 12, 2022 23:55:15 GMT -8
Though many folks would argue that giving a director more money to produce a film doesn't necessarily result in a superior work (a larger scale can often make things considerably more impersonal), if one was going by how you ranked Tarantino's filmography, there might be something to the idea that a bigger production budget at least added a bit more colour and/or energy to his ambitions.
That said, as someone who has a significantly greater appreciation for crime fiction than you, I still think Pulp Fiction has far-and-away his best script. Not necessarily on a plot level, outside of the looping structure, but simply based on how endlessly quotable it is from beginning to end. It's really quite like a very coarse Seinfeld, with the borderline melodic walk-and-talk aspect. But it's got a fairly dry visual presentation (the budget was eight million dollars, I believe) -- many shots are very carefully-composed, but the colours don't pop, outside of the Jack Rabbit Slims section -- and features a fair amount of sexually-explicit dialogue which would not be palatable to your sensibility. Also, it doesn't attempt to engender a heartfelt emotional response to any of its characters, which can have a distancing effect on some viewers. Regardless, it still features Samuel L. Jackson's defining film performance, which he spun into a hugely successful film career.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 13, 2022 15:33:04 GMT -8
I don't think it's true of every director (many of the Coen Brothers' best films, for example, were produced on a comparative shoestring), but there may be something to Tarantino doing better with a larger budget. At the very least, having more of a scale and scope to his films is a good way to avoid dwelling on their less tasteful elements. Though even then, there can be too much of a good thing - Django Unchained is his most expensive movie, and demonstrates the pitfalls of excess.
It is entirely possible that I was too harsh on Pulp Fiction on first viewing, particularly since, on retrospect, it (along with Reservoir Dogs) does construct a lot of the elements that help distinguish his later works. But I gotta confess, I really don't have any motivation to watch it again, given how very little it did for me the first time around. I don't begrudge people who love the film, but it just really wasn't for me.
Also, the defining role of Sam Jackson's career is in the snake movie. Or at least it was to my generation. Though that may not speak well of my generation.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 13, 2022 15:53:37 GMT -8
It is entirely possible that I was too harsh on Pulp Fiction on first viewing, particularly since, on retrospect, it (along with Reservoir Dogs) does construct a lot of the elements that help distinguish his later works. But I gotta confess, I really don't have any motivation to watch it again, given how very little it did for me the first time around. I don't begrudge people who love the film, but it just really wasn't for me. Also, the defining role of Sam Jackson's career is in the snake movie. Or at least it was to my generation. Though that may not speak well of my generation. The thing about Pulp Fiction is, it isn't so much a traditionally driving narrative (which a lot of viewers look for), as it is a series of bizarre-yet-mundane vignettes involving low-level criminals. It's all about stripping away (and mocking) the supposed professionalism or glamour of career criminals, and by extension, "macho" male film roles. I think the casual walk-and-talk dialogue, as well as a number of the extreme "incidents" (especially Marvin's head being blown off, and the adrenaline shot with Mia) are very, very funny, and the film is very tight, structurally. It also takes some old pulpy chestnuts (the boxer who's paid by gangsters to throw a fight, taking the boss's wife out for the evening, criminal doing One Last Job), and subverts them to absurd levels. That sort of darkly-comic stuff is right up my alley. As for Snakes On A Plane, Jules Winfield walked (the Earth) so Neville Flynn could slither fly.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 13, 2022 18:22:01 GMT -8
I’m not really opposed to any of those factors on principle - I love dark and subversive comedy, as well as deconstructing familiar tropes. It’s one of those instances where I get put off by the film’s surface attributes to the point where my brain doesn’t feel compelled to analyze beyond them.
There are quite a few examples where I’d be more interested to watch or read a discussion around a film than the film itself; Pulp Fiction is one of them.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 13, 2022 18:34:49 GMT -8
It is entirely possible that I was too harsh on Pulp Fiction on first viewing, particularly since, on retrospect, it (along with Reservoir Dogs) does construct a lot of the elements that help distinguish his later works. But I gotta confess, I really don't have any motivation to watch it again, given how very little it did for me the first time around. I don't begrudge people who love the film, but it just really wasn't for me. Also, the defining role of Sam Jackson's career is in the snake movie. Or at least it was to my generation. Though that may not speak well of my generation. The thing about Pulp Fiction is, it isn't so much a traditionally driving narrative (which a lot of viewers look for), as it is a series of bizarre-yet-mundane vignettes involving low-level criminals. It's all about stripping away (and mocking) the supposed professionalism or glamour of career criminals, and by extension, "macho" male film roles. I think the casual walk-and-talk dialogue, as well as a number of the extreme "incidents" (especially Marvin's head being blown off, and the adrenaline shot with Mia) are very, very funny, and the film is very tight, structurally. It also takes some old pulpy chestnuts (the boxer who's paid by gangsters to throw a fight, taking the boss's wife out for the evening, criminal doing One Last Job), and subverts them to absurd levels. That sort of darkly-comic stuff is right up my alley. As for Snakes On A Plane, Jules Winfield walked (the Earth) so Neville Flynn could slither fly. I actually think Pulp Fiction has an *extremely* traditional narrative structure - the non-linear slicing and dicing of the narrative on a temporal level is all in service of rearranging that bizarre plot in an order that obeys the laws of a Shakespearian - Horatian even! - five-act structure.
I don't really care for Tarantino's oeuvre because I always feel like his films' more skeezy aspects are direct reflections of him as skeezy person (e.g. the whole feet thing) but this list makes me think I really should get around to Kill Bill.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 14, 2022 21:10:43 GMT -8
The thing about Pulp Fiction is, it isn't so much a traditionally driving narrative (which a lot of viewers look for), as it is a series of bizarre-yet-mundane vignettes involving low-level criminals. It's all about stripping away (and mocking) the supposed professionalism or glamour of career criminals, and by extension, "macho" male film roles. I think the casual walk-and-talk dialogue, as well as a number of the extreme "incidents" (especially Marvin's head being blown off, and the adrenaline shot with Mia) are very, very funny, and the film is very tight, structurally. It also takes some old pulpy chestnuts (the boxer who's paid by gangsters to throw a fight, taking the boss's wife out for the evening, criminal doing One Last Job), and subverts them to absurd levels. That sort of darkly-comic stuff is right up my alley. As for Snakes On A Plane, Jules Winfield walked (the Earth) so Neville Flynn could slither fly. I actually think Pulp Fiction has an *extremely* traditional narrative structure - the non-linear slicing and dicing of the narrative on a temporal level is all in service of rearranging that bizarre plot in an order that obeys the laws of a Shakespearian - Horatian even! - five-act structure.
I don't really care for Tarantino's oeuvre because I always feel like his films' more skeezy aspects are direct reflections of him as skeezy person (e.g. the whole feet thing) but this list makes me think I really should get around to Kill Bill.,
I don't think it's "extremely traditional" to have a character who was seen being murdered earlier in a movie appear in the climax of a film (in "real-time", not hazy flashback), walking off into the sunset with his gun holstered in his Bermuda shorts. Anyways, what I meant was, it doesn't settle on one central point-of-view for the film's duration (attempting to invoke a consistent state of empathy from the audience), but breaks it up into different individual (story) perspectives, many of whom aren't particularly sympathetic. It's not going for a conventionally emotional level of engagement, is all. I mean, Pulp Fiction, in its laid-back nature, is sort of a "hangout" movie like Jackie Brown, but the latter definitely emphasizes empathy for its characters, at least as it pertains to the middle-aged love story between Jackie Brown and Max Cherry (much of that is likely novelist Elmore Leonard's doing). As for Kill Bill, while I suspect Jeremy would cite comedy as being his favourite genre of film/TV, deep-down, we all know it's really action. And that film, scene-for-scene, has the most action of any QT film (Django would probably be second or third, but it's considerably longer, and saves most of the action for its final stretch). And BTW, if the QT foot-fetish thing is a particular turnoff for you, you'd get no respite from it in Kill Bill Vol. 1.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jun 15, 2022 9:16:20 GMT -8
I don't think Kill Bill is my least favourite Tarentino property (certainly not when Django exists which is a movie I generally cannot stand) but I feel like Tarentino is at his best when he's playing around with narrative structures a bit more. I think generally his ability to create style is what differentiates him, and to be operating on all cylinders I don't think that style is just from an action perspective, but narratively and directorially. And Kill Bill certainly has all the action stylings you can ask for, but there's that little bit extra that Tarentino can put in a lot of his properties that seems to be missing.
I generally feel the same way about Jackie Brown, which is probably his most straightforward movie. It's not bad, but it has removed an awful lot of the things I consider that makes him Tarentino.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 15, 2022 16:17:53 GMT -8
I mean, Kill Bill does toy with narrative structure, what with the hopscotching between the past and present, as well as (in the first film, notably) the times between. It unspools the story in an out-of-joint sequence that manages to maximize audience interest and sympathy in the protagonist. I don't really care for Tarantino's oeuvre because I always feel like his films' more skeezy aspects are direct reflections of him as skeezy person (e.g. the whole feet thing) but this list makes me think I really should get around to Kill Bill.
Kill Bill has a lot to appreciate and enjoy provided you can stomach all the insane violence. I probably couldn't have a few years ago, but my stomach has fortified with time. (The feet thing is still weird, though.) As for Kill Bill, while I suspect Jeremy would cite comedy as being his favourite genre of film/TV, deep-down, we all know it's really action. And that film, scene-for-scene, has the most action of any QT film (Django would probably be second or third, but it's considerably longer, and saves most of the action for its final stretch). I mean, that's not far off. My favorite film genre (excluding animation, which I'm not fully sure can be classed as a genre of its own anymore, given the wide and sprawling variety of it) would be a mix of action and comedy. Which is to say, I'm perfectly willing to watch a lot of serious and deliberately-paced films - and have enjoyed quite a lot of them - but I'm always a bit partial to films that emphasize the excitement and fun factor. The ideal film for my personal enjoyment would be a movie that combines several stylish action pieces with a lot of fun comedy, a memorable soundtrack, a minimum of excessive cursing, sex, and violence (okay, I'll give it some leeway on violence), and a 100-minute runtime. That's not a guarantee that I'll love the film, and certainly won't guarantee I think it's of pristine quality, but it's at least a good chance I'll be invested in the film and have a good time.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 16, 2022 17:09:14 GMT -8
As for Kill Bill, while I suspect Jeremy would cite comedy as being his favourite genre of film/TV, deep-down, we all know it's really action. And that film, scene-for-scene, has the most action of any QT film (Django would probably be second or third, but it's considerably longer, and saves most of the action for its final stretch). I mean, that's not far off. My favorite film genre (excluding animation, which I'm not fully sure can be classed as a genre of its own anymore, given the wide and sprawling variety of it) would be a mix of action and comedy. Which is to say, I'm perfectly willing to watch a lot of serious and deliberately-paced films - and have enjoyed quite a lot of them - but I'm always a bit partial to films that emphasize the excitement and fun factor. The ideal film for my personal enjoyment would be a movie that combines several stylish action pieces with a lot of fun comedy, a memorable soundtrack, a minimum of excessive cursing, sex, and violence (okay, I'll give it some leeway on violence), and a 100-minute runtime. That's not a guarantee that I'll love the film, and certainly won't guarantee I think it's of pristine quality, but it's at least a good chance I'll be invested in the film and have a good time. That's interesting. I'd generally say I prefer dramas overall, though I'm also partial to suspense (love The Shield so much for that reason). I don't think comedies are inherently worse but they tend not to leave an impact on me. Mostly because even in really good comedies rarely do the characters feel like real people--after all, a laugh is the ultimate purpose. Bending the characters into unreality is justifiable if it's funny. Though, of course, there are dramas that are often very funny.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 16, 2022 20:26:23 GMT -8
So let me draw a distinction here between my preferences in film and in TV. When it comes to movies, I usually tend to prefer them are quick and light, whereas I'm usually fine with TV shows being dark and heavy. This is partly because I like to absorb content in 30-60 minute chunks, the better to appreciate the micro aspects of the form, and partly because I enjoy the long-term scope of television, even as I tend to get pretty fatigued by individual films that run for 2.5 hours or longer (a category that includes a good chunk of Tarantino's oeuvre). This is also why I bristle every time some showrunner brags that he's making less a TV show than a "ten-hour movie." Dude, nobody wants to watch that.
I try to keep an open mind about pop-culture as I consume it, and in truth, I have watched a lot of classic and beloved films in the last two years that I've enjoyed more than I would have expected to. But I've also come across a large number of widely acclaimed films that... just do nothing for me. They usually tend to be moody dramas, with very few tonal shifts and a runtime extending beyond two hours. That's not to say I can't enjoy films which fit that description (e.g. I liked Apocalypse Now a lot), but it's really not what clicks with me. In a film format, anyway.
My favorite TV genre is generally the hourlong drama, although in recent years it's gravitated more to the half-hour "not quite a comedy." I don't know if there's an actual name for that genre but I think you all know the kind of show I'm referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 17, 2022 14:09:56 GMT -8
Bridging off that previous comment... This week, I watched a quartet of critically acclaimed dramas - four films that are have garnered a lot of praise and are all in or near the Letterboxd Top 250. My responses to these films overall was a bit mixed. Here are my thoughts, in ascending order of preference:
Synecdoche, New York - I was really looking forward to this film, given my love for much of Charlie Kaufman's screen work and for the late Philip Seymour Hoffman as an actor. But I'm sorry - as the cool kids say, I simply could not with this movie. It's so aloof and fragmented, so cryptically detached (presumably by intent) to actual human reality that I could not find anything to latch onto. Occasionally an interesting visual (i.e. the house on fire) would perk things up, but hardly enough to sustain full interest. I could tell that the cast was doing good work, but I could not tell you what it was they were working towards. My brain checked out after 30 minutes and it was all downhill from there. My take on Kaufman is that he is a very talented screenwriter who works best when he's opposite a director not named himself who can rein in his more outré sensibilities and keep his mind from disappearing into the clouds.
Boogie Nights - So um, I actually went into this film thinking it was going to be about disco. Oops! Saturday Night Fever this ain't. It's a daunting film at 155 minutes, but thankfully the script presented several, um, opportunities to hit the fast-forward button. My overall thoughts are quite similar to Licorice Pizza, in that there are a lot of interesting individual scenes that never really come together in a cohesive whole, in part because the film doesn't really explore its characters as much as it professes to. I know that Paul Thomas Anderson gets a lot of praise for not "judging" his characters re. their myriad misbehaviors, but that makes it a little difficult to discern what the point of the film is. The porn industry ruins lives and breeds a lot of amoral personalities? I mean... yes? I won't knock this film too hard, since a lot of people here really seem to love it. It's fine, didn't hate it or anything, but really didn't connect with much of it.
Chungking Express - My second Wong Kar-Wai film. I really liked In the Mood for Love, and was eager to check out his other films. The first half of Chungking Express includes a lot of what I enjoyed about ItMfL - a pair of great leads, palpable romantic tension, some amazing visuals (Wong has a great eye for making visuals pop in the most dimly lit scenes), and a complex shades-of-grey story. The second half of the film... ehhhh. The Tony Leung story is all right, but it goes on way too long and doesn't have nearly as much to say. And while "California Dreamin'" is a catchy song, hearing it played half-a-dozen times in half-a-dozen scenes got real gooey, real fast. Certainly a good film with an appealing cast, but a little too frontloaded. (I'd give the first story four stars and the second three stars, so law of averages and whatnot.)
Black Swan - Quite a bit too much fingernail and toenail damage, though obviously the film isn't aiming for a pleasant experience. With that in mind, I really liked it. Great cast, evocative story, incredible cinematography. I haven't seen most of Darren Aronofsky's films, but the reasons behind his polarizing reputation (is he a genius or a psycho? Or both?) are on full display here. This is not a film that will appeal to everyone - and frankly, I wasn't expecting it to appeal to me, but it was the best film I watched this week. Much credit due to Natalie Portman, who nails the portrayal of a girl-next-door's descent into madness. Not particularly subtle in its visuals (i.e. the character's clothing as reflection of mood), but also rich in subtext, without ever losing sight of the compelling character at its center.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 17, 2022 14:20:30 GMT -8
So let me draw a distinction here between my preferences in film and in TV. When it comes to movies, I usually tend to prefer them are quick and light, whereas I'm usually fine with TV shows being dark and heavy. This is partly because I like to absorb content in 30-60 minute chunks, the better to appreciate the micro aspects of the form, and partly because I enjoy the long-term scope of television, even as I tend to get pretty fatigued by individual films that run for 2.5 hours or longer (a category that includes a good chunk of Tarantino's oeuvre). This is also why I bristle every time some showrunner brags that he's making less a TV show than a "ten-hour movie." Dude, nobody wants to watch that. I try to keep an open mind about pop-culture as I consume it, and in truth, I have watched a lot of classic and beloved films in the last two years that I've enjoyed more than I would have expected to. But I've also come across a large number of widely acclaimed films that... just do nothing for me. They usually tend to be moody dramas, with very few tonal shifts and a runtime extending beyond two hours. That's not to say I can't enjoy films which fit that description (e.g. I liked Apocalypse Now a lot), but it's really not what clicks with me. In a film format, anyway. My favorite TV genre is generally the hourlong drama, although in recent years it's gravitated more to the half-hour "not quite a comedy." I don't know if there's an actual name for that genre but I think you all know the kind of show I'm referring to. Ah, yeah, that makes more sense. I assumed that you were talking about film and tv. I suppose when I said that I preferred drama, it just really irritates me when films/tv shows think that being lighthearted means that there has to be no hardship or conflict whatsoever. That's just not real life, and it really sucks the life out of films and shows like that for me. A bit different from my original point about absurdity and reality in comedies compared to dramas, but a tangential one, I think. You described Synecdoche, New York as detached from human reality, and I think that's the key, really. As long as a fictional work can find that, drama or comedy, it will probably resonate with me.
|
|