AudioCircle
Music and Media => The Cinema => Topic started by: WGH on 12 May 2018, 04:55 pm
-
Quentin Tarantino's new film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" has just started production and just from the cast he has assembled it looks to be a good one to keep an eye out for.
The cast will include Timothy Olyphant, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Burt Reynolds, Tim Roth, Kurt Russell and Michael Madsen in a Pulp Fiction style film that follows a group of characters in LA during the summer of 1969 leading up to the moment when Charles Manson's followers murdered Sharon Tate.
-
Sounds interesting. I hope Burt hangs around long enough to do the part. I saw him recently and he is quite frail.
-
I consider QT an over-hyped hack but this sounds like it's in his wheelhouse/Pulp fiction roots. I'll go see it for Timothy Olyphant.
-
Tarantino is a genius. Thanks for the heads up. The cast is once again outstanding. :popcorn:
-
Tarantino is a genius. Thanks for the heads up. The cast is once again outstanding. :popcorn:
You mean the filmmakers he copies are geniuses.
-
One trick pony is more what I think than genius. I'm a big fan of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but that's about it. Some of the rest were ok, some not even good. Inglorious was decent, Django simply dumb. A gillion years ago in Terrell, Tx. I had a very poor chemistry student with a bad attitude named Eric Bishop. He portrays much the same angry young man now that the name is Jamie Foxx- just a lot richer.
-
You mean the filmmakers he copies are geniuses.
Don't fool yourself, everybody copies. It's how well you do it and Tarantino does it very well.
I just spent half a day researching church door ideas for St. John's Methodist Church's new entry doors. Am I copying or using the designs I found for inspiration? It really doesn't matter as long as the finished product turns out well, which they always do.
-
I consider QT an over-hyped hack...
Yes. Or as Mr. Clark put it "a one trick pony".
He makes the same film over and over: a minimally plotted blood and violence soaked revenge fantasy. He doesn't even need to change the dialogue much as half of it consists of the same three or four bits of profanity repeated ad nauseam.
I couldn't get through "Reservoir Dogs". I thought "Pulp Fiction was a flashy piece of jejune crap (though a second viewing after all of it's acclaim garnered a bit more appreciation for some of it's stylistic elements and plot construction). I saw most of one of the "Kill Bill" movies years later thinking he must have grown given the continued praise. Nope. Worse in fact.
Years after that I saw "Django" not knowing it was his film and thinking a fair review blurb or two and such a good cast must be somewhat entertaining. I kept futilely hoping that until the end (slow night). The worst one of all.
His films are totally pointless dreck with cheap stereotypes galore. Masturbatory material for budding sadists. I will never voluntarily view one of his films again.
Rant over (it's one that's been percolating for a good while). :roll: :)
-
Yes. Or as Mr. Clark put it "a one trick pony".
He makes the same film over and over: a minimally plotted blood and violence soaked revenge fantasy. He doesn't even need to change the dialogue much as half of it consists of the same three or four bits of profanity repeated ad nauseam.
I couldn't get through "Reservoir Dogs". I thought "Pulp Fiction was a flashy piece of jejune crap (though a second viewing after all of it's acclaim garnered a bit more appreciation for some of it's stylistic elements and plot construction). I saw most of one of the "Kill Bill" movies years later thinking he must have grown given the continued praise. Nope. Worse in fact.
Years after that I saw "Django" not knowing it was his film and thinking a fair review blurb or two and such a good cast must be somewhat entertaining. I kept futilely hoping that until the end (slow night). The worst one of all.
His films are totally pointless dreck with cheap stereotypes galore. Masturbatory material for budding sadists. I will never voluntarily view one of his films again.
Rant over (it's one that's been percolating for a good while). :roll: :)
Kill Bill is one of my favorite films. Of course I appreciate it a lot more after watching the Lone Wolf and Cub movies and Lady Snowblood movies. I love that Tarantino has huge amount of homage in his films, but not homages to the french new wave or anything like that, but rather to 70's Japanese exploitation films.
-
Don't fool yourself, everybody copies.
How can I fool myself if I know the work he copies? I get it. A lot of people think he's awesome. And I'd be the first to credit him for introducing some of his influences to the mainstream. Hong Kong cinema in particular. Maybe it's because he's also from Jersey around the same time period. I grew up watching a lot of the same movies. So when I watch his stuff I just want to pop in those other movies instead.
I do think Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are great, especially Pulp Fiction. Maybe having Roger Avary for those two helped him focus. I just see indulgences and misfires after that.
-
I thought Reservoir Dogs was genius and Hateful 8 was masterful as well. I'm neither a big fan nor a hater, but I do think he's an immensely brilliant technician and an incredibly knowledgeable film historian. I never saw Pulp Fiction but I thought Kill Bill was largely excellent. If the reviews are decent I'll likely catch his new one.
-
True Romance is a film favorite of mine.
-
Interesting how deviceive Tarantino is.
He is a scene maker to me—some very very good, some not so much. His dialogue-ego gets in the way and losses film direction but then again that is what is very good in some cases. His period films feel like skits sometimes or parodies. The one that is fully emersive in that aspect is Jackie Brown.
It’s od to me how he manages to make films with seaminly complex story lines and emotionally complex characters, yet leaves nothing to be discussed after. It’s all so blatant and on-the-table, lacking in nuance somehow... I do enjoy the watching experience but am left cold often.
I like (as far as what I’d tune into again):
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp fiction, Jackie Brown, some scenes in Inglorious Bastards (which was my fave of his for a while. The best scene tension he ever made), and I had enough fun with Django to put it here (good thing he stretched out the comedy aspect there). But I’m wrestling to put Death Proof up here for a few reasons.
-
Anyone see Inherent Vice? Scene moods are like a cross between David Lynch and Tarantino. I bet QT is jealous of this one. I loved it.
-
Some of his movies are good some not so good but to call him a genius is reaching a bit.
Call me by my proper pro noun which is BAD ASS MUTHA FUCKA. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I have seen most of his movies, and some of the sources of his "inspiration" too.
I really enjoyed R Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also liked Four Rooms and Natural Born Killers.
True Romance is the high water mark for me. Hopper, Walken, Slater, Gandolfini, Pitt, Kilmer, Jackson, Oldman.
The scene in the trailer with Walken and Hopper might be my favourite movie scene ever. Walken and Hopper in amazing form.
Kill Bill, Django, Hateful 8, Inglorious, and others did not do that much for me but were successes in their own right.
-
Anyone see Inherent Vice? Scene moods are like a cross between David Lynch and Tarantino. I bet QT is jealous of this one. I loved it.
Not a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson either. He and QT occupy similar spaces for me.
But I do think he may be a genius - maybe more of a savant. And unlike QT, he is getting better and better with every movie. Inherent Vice was interesting. I'll have to read the book and re-watch it. QT will never make anything like The Master, though. That is a masterpiece for the ages.
Anyhoos, I think QT is a good, sometimes great filmmaker. He just never matured (IMO of course).
-
I think every great film maker has a certain style that's instantly recognizable - you'd never mistake a PTA movie for a Tarantino movie or a Wes Anderson movie for anyone else, or Hitchcock or Kurosawa or fill in the blank.
The divide re: Tarantino is not around his mastery of the form, but rather his sensibilities. He's direct, he's unsubtle, a bit crass. He's got a hint of poor white trash about his work. For 'normal' people he's too fantastical and over the top. For lovers of 'serious' cinema, he can be a bit of an embarrassment. I mean, who really wants to admit that they loved, what is essentially a trashy movie executed at the level of high art.
That's why I think he's such a divisive director.
-
I think every great film maker has a certain style that's instantly recognizable - you'd never mistake a PTA movie for a Tarantino movie or a Wes Anderson movie for anyone else, or Hitchcock or Kurosawa or fill in the blank.
The divide re: Tarantino is not around his mastery of the form, but rather his sensibilities. He's direct, he's unsubtle, a bit crass. He's got a hint of poor white trash about his work. For 'normal' people he's too fantastical and over the top. For lovers of 'serious' cinema, he can be a bit of an embarrassment. I mean, who really wants to admit that they loved, what is essentially a trashy movie executed at the level of high art.
That's why I think he's such a divisive director.
? 'Serious' cinema lovers are his biggest fans. He's considered a genius in France, a darling of Cannes.
Maybe you're talking about Kevin Smith? :lol:
-
QT will never make anything like The Master, though. That is a masterpiece for the ages.
Anyhoos, I think QT is a good, sometimes great filmmaker. He just never matured (IMO of course).
Interesting. I hated The Master but loved There Will be Blood. Both Boogie Nights & Magnolia were over-rated IMO. But Anderson's movies are thought-provoking for sure.
Tarantino's best is & always will be Pulp Fiction IMO. Kill Bill & Reservoir Dogs follow. He was born in my hometown Knoxville, TN, so I have to give him love for that alone. :lol:
-
? 'Serious' cinema lovers are his biggest fans. He's considered a genius in France, a darling of Cannes.
Maybe you're talking about Kevin Smith? :lol:
I'm not really talking about the critics, I'm talking more about regular film viewers. American film watchers. France is crazy sometimes. e.g. - their obscene and inexplicable love of Jerry Lewis.
-
One trick pony is more what I think than genius. I'm a big fan of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but that's about it. Some of the rest were ok, some not even good. Inglorious was decent, Django simply dumb. A gillion years ago in Terrell, Tx. I had a very poor chemistry student with a bad attitude named Eric Bishop. He portrays much the same angry young man now that the name is Jamie Foxx- just a lot richer.
You could say the same about Tom Cruise. Could be why they became good friends after making Collateral. Nobody gets scary angry on screen like Tom Cruise. Cruise would be amazing in a Tarantino movie.
-
I really enjoyed R Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I also liked Four Rooms and Natural Born Killers.
True Romance is the high water mark for me. Hopper, Walken, Slater, Gandolfini, Pitt, Kilmer, Jackson, Oldman.
The scene in the trailer with Walken and Hopper might be my favourite movie scene ever. Walken and Hopper in amazing form.
I despised Natural Born Killers but I agree about True Romance- it was a masterpiece! Walken & Hopper chewing scenery was epic fun to behold.
-
Latest "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" update: AL PACINO has joined the cast in Tarantino's newest star-studded film. Pacino will play Marvin Schwarz, Leonardo DiCaprio's character's agent, making this his first collaboration with Tarantino. Dating back to his first feature film, 1992's "Reservoir Dogs," Tarantino has always cast movie stars he grew up watching. Pacino fits the mold of A-list actors who rose to fame in the 1970s.
This is going to be one weird film. Can Tarantino keep Pacino from chewing up the scenery? We'll see.
-
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood trailer - looks like a lot of unpredictable fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA)
Coming to theaters July 26th.
-
'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood' is a Sergino Corbucci Italian western (“the second-best director of spaghetti westerns in the whole wide world”) set in 1969 Hollywood. To understand you will have to watch "The Great Silence" (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/movies/sergio-corbucci-the-great-silence.html?module=inline). Quentin Tarantino lovingly crafted this film with non-stop pop culture references with movie marquis, movie posters, film clips, and dialog including mentioning Corbucci, who was a real life director. The film blends fact with fantasy, hence the "Once Upon a Time" in the title.
The film takes it time to develop and there is a lot crammed in the almost 3 hour running time but it doesn't seem that long, although I am a Tarantino fan. The film is watched at two levels, one is the story and the other are all the cultural references. At the Welcome Diner (http://welcomediner.net/) after the movie our waiter loved it but his under 30 year old girlfriend thought it was long and boring.
'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood' has classic dialog, slowly increasing tension with occasional flashes of Tarantino violence, the portrayal of 1969 Hollywood is perfect.
To quote a NY Times review (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending.html):
"At the Cannes Film Festival in May, on the night before Quentin Tarantino premiered his new film “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood,” I ran into the Sony Pictures chairman Tom Rothman. Tarantino had already asked the press not to spoil any of the surprises in the sprawling film they were about to see, but Rothman couldn’t resist one little tease.
“This movie,” he told me with a significant grin, “has the greatest. Ending. Ever!”
I couldn't have said it better.
Wayne
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Note: if you have already seen 'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood', check out the glossary, but it does include spoilers so wait until later if you haven't seen the film:
A Pop-Culture Glossary for ‘Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood’
Quentin Tarantino’s film is filled with references to TV shows, movies and other totems of midcentury Los Angeles. We explain who’s who and what’s what.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-glossary.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-glossary.html)
-
I liked it a lot as we walked out of the theater. I liked a lot more the next day, so did my wife as we absorbed everything about the movie. :thumb: :thumb:
-
A well made film with excellent performances by all the actors. Very entertaining, which is all I ask of a movie theater film.
-
We liked the film. It takes some time to get going though. Decaprio and Pitt worked well together. The movie was a blast from the past for me.
-
My question is - the one reason I don't watch QT films is because every sentence has F... in it. It's really tiresome and completely distracting for me. Does this movie do that?
-
F**K YEA!
But seriously I didn't notice it, the dialog is how people talked in 1969. There was more swearing in his westerns and films with tough guys because that is how people talked back then.
Stay away from David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross, Martin Scorsese's 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and David Milch's 'Deadwood' although David Milch has stated that all that swearing was authentic based on history and diary's he read.
Deadwood Wikipedia: "it was decided that the show would use current profanity in order for the words to have the same impact on modern audiences as the blasphemous ones did back in the 1870s."
-
F**K YEA!
But seriously I didn't notice it, the dialog is how people talked in 1969. There was more swearing in his westerns and films with tough guys because that is how people talked back then.
Stay away from David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross, Martin Scorsese's 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and David Milch's 'Deadwood' although David Milch has stated that all that swearing was authentic based on history and diary's he read.
Deadwood Wikipedia: "it was decided that the show would use current profanity in order for the words to have the same impact on modern audiences as the blasphemous ones did back in the 1870s."
I saw GGR on cable TV.... for a while. Yeah, I couldn't watch much of it.
-
No, not like the usual Tarantino offering in regard to language. Actually an intriguing story line carries the weight here. ( not over the top violence and language) Plus it was from a period I can relate to and he did a great job of depicting it. Not a Tarantino fan for the most part, but this one clicked for me big time.
-
F**K YEA!
But seriously I didn't notice it, the dialog is how people talked in 1969. There was more swearing in his westerns and films with tough guys because that is how people talked back then.
Stay away from David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross, Martin Scorsese's 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and David Milch's 'Deadwood' although David Milch has stated that all that swearing was authentic based on history and diary's he read.
Deadwood Wikipedia: "it was decided that the show would use current profanity in order for the words to have the same impact on modern audiences as the blasphemous ones did back in the 1870s."
Deadwood wore me out mainly because of the Al Swearengen ( Ian McShane ) character. He became known by one critic as "Al Swear Engine".
-
No, not like the usual Tarantino offering in regard to language. Actually an intriguing story line carries the weight here. ( not over the top violence and language)
Thanks, I’m more inclined to check it out now. I gave up on QT a long time ago. Pulp was an amazing one off. He hasn’t done anything since that I’d consider half as good.
-
Samuel L Jackson isn't in it, so there's half the amount right there! :no_speak: