[neekomax]

So I finally watched it.

I was about to tear it apart, because it is so inaccurate in like every way, but it just doesn't make sense or deserve that time. What a waste. It offers nothing.

You completely missed the point, then.

[BobM]

I think love for his movies is polarized. You either love them or hate them. I thought it was pretty much a waste of time too, but it did fill a Friday night for a $1 rental. Never really got any of his films, but then I also didn't like Seinfeld.
 

[neekomax]

Um, don't take this the wrong way, but may I ask how old you guys are?

[Mike B.]

I guess I will throw my "geezer" opinion in. I thought it was mediocre compared to his best works. I have seen most of last years best picture nominees and it is at the bottom of my list. A comedy? If it was meant to be a comedy it failed.

[geowak]

Pulp Fiction was good, it was original. The more exposure one has to good film making, the more taste will change. Many have said Art today, has many forms and one is film making. So is QT a good artist? Only time will tell. For me, his work comedy and all, is mediocre. Pulp Fiction was his best. DU was not as good, in any way, except maybe for production quality.

[jimdgoulding]

Already I've commented but would point out that his first movie to my knowledge, Reservoir Dogs, put him on the map stylistically.  Cutting back and forth in time was, if not completely original , very well executed and entertaining.  That and his violent subject matter put him on the map.  I don't think his latest is hardly as revolutionary as his best.  Doesn't even belong in the same company, imo.

[wushuliu]

Hm, maybe I'll watch it today. Keep forgetting about it. All I know is Resevoir Dogs and Pulp are his two best films - both of which involved Roger Avary to some degree. After that it's just been a long snore of pretentious 'exploitation' films. He does get points for working with RZA and Gordon Liu though.

I just think there are so many people who do what he does better.

You can have Kill Bill - I'll take Ghost Dog.
You can Have Jackie Brown - I'll take Out of Sight

[wushuliu]

Just finished it. Mixed feelings. In some ways it's really good in other ways it's the usual QT fare. He just can't get out of his own way. The cast makes the film work and frankly it's a bore until they meet Leo. Leo and Sam Jackson elevate the film. Jackson is just awesome. Nice to see him doing some actual acting again. Leo is having a great time. They must have had a blast shooting those scenes. God bless Waltz because without him I don't think I could have handled the movie. He is able to translate QT language in a way that really fits. Cast is just excellent. It has James Remar!

As for the rest of the film it's meh - a mishmash of homages and influences from other films with lots of retro sounding songs interrupting. The over the top violence was just distracting and served no purpose. The usual QT fare. He tried to be Peckinpah, Leone, Ford, etc. but just ends up making me want to watch their movies instead when does that.

Geowak is right about the production quality. It's nice to see him actually make a film that looks good - great costume design, sets, locations. As soon as it started I thought hey the photogrpahy is really nice then lo and behold Robert Richardson's name came up: one of my favorite cinematographers. There's something distinctive about his films. They are just beautiful.

Finally as for the subject matter, not worth going into as it's sensitive but I was underwhelmed with the approach. I'm sure QT thought he was being brave and in some ways maybe he was. But if I come away from the filming thinking about how hilarious Leo and Sam Jackson and Jonah Hill were I'm not sure I'd say that aspect was a success.

The film could have been so much more.

[wushuliu]

Um, don't take this the wrong way, but may I ask how old you guys are?

Better question may be how young are you. Maybe some of us are more jaded about his films because we remember when he broke out, saw his early stuff in the theater, remember all the unending hype and all the movies that tried to copy and pretty much flooded indie cinema with crappy knock-offs only to realize when Jackie Brown came that he was a one-trick pony. It's always the same shtick and it's been that way for 20 yrs. Can you look at Django and see in any way a maturity since Reservoir Dogs? Nope. Just a different genre is all. But he IS an interesting writer and that makes him just unique enough to keep a rabid fanbase. That along w/ the Weinstein marketing machinery, which is amongst the best there is. They can get the alphabet nominated for an award.

It's not that he sucks. He is a talented guy. But waaaaay overrated.

[neekomax]

Better question may be how young are you. Maybe some of us are more jaded about his films because we remember when he broke out, saw his early stuff in the theater, remember all the unending hype and all the movies that tried to copy and pretty much flooded indie cinema with crappy knock-offs only to realize when Jackie Brown came that he was a one-trick pony. It's always the same shtick and it's been that way for 20 yrs. Can you look at Django and see in any way a maturity since Reservoir Dogs? Nope. Just a different genre is all. But he IS an interesting writer and that makes him just unique enough to keep a rabid fanbase. That along w/ the Weinstein marketing machinery, which is amongst the best there is. They can get the alphabet nominated for an award.

It's not that he sucks. He is a talented guy. But waaaaay overrated.

Fair enough. I'd say that's a pretty good analysis. If this thread were people saying stuff like that, I would have reacted differently, I think. But I heard a lot of variations on, 'I just don't get it - that wasn't realistic at all! Such silliness!' It's a little like panning Chopin for not rocking hard enough. It's just not applicable. I have no issue with people not liking it, but at least understand its intent.

Personally I - and my girlfriend - laughed our asses off through much of it. I agree that the last quarter was gratuitously long and not as funny. We re-watched Inglorious Basterds a few days later home, and also really dug that.

I'm 37. I saw Pulp Fiction in the theatre in college.

[Folsom]

You completely missed the point, then.

It was suppose to a pointless movie?

Not only was it woefully inaccurate on basically everything, it was a super snooze-ass boring story. The only thing it has going for it is playing on your sympathy to a fairy-tale version of what is not, but was meant to be some sorta anti-racist movie. I don't see how someone's political ideology should make a movie good, that is terrible. I mean like what, is QT about to start a rap career? I can't imagine how his idiotic fairy-tale is suppose to be of any kind of benefit but to jerk off all of his white friends that love to talk about not being racist. Unfortunately people are going to watch this movie, just like Lincoln, and assume the made up version of history is better to represent their political ideology. Then they start to form concepts and stuff around it... 

History is RICH with more than enough information to outline reasons that people have and do choose political ideology. We don't need a made up version to have morals. We call those myths, and myths get used against the uneducated.

[neekomax]

It was suppose to a pointless movie?

Not only was it woefully inaccurate on basically everything, it was a super snooze-ass boring story. The only thing it has going for it is playing on your sympathy to a fairy-tale version of what is not, but was meant to be some sorta anti-racist movie. I don't see how someone's political ideology should make a movie good, that is terrible. I mean like what, is QT about to start a rap career? I can't imagine how his idiotic fairy-tale is suppose to be of any kind of benefit but to jerk off all of his white friends that love to talk about not being racist. Unfortunately people are going to watch this movie, just like Lincoln, and assume the made up version of history is better to represent their political ideology. Then they start to form concepts and stuff around it... 

History is RICH with more than enough information to outline reasons that people have and do choose political ideology. We don't need a made up version to have morals. We call those myths, and myths get used against the uneducated.

Dude, just... no. You totally missed the point. It was a comedy. Not a political statement, not an historical film lol. Oh man.

 

[neekomax]

Maybe we should just stick to discussing audio gear. Apparently that doesn't require a sense of humor. 

[JerryM]

I knew there would come a time when I actually liked this movie. Now I do.

Thanks, Guys! 

[geowak]

My mother said to me one time that the two greatest artists of her lifetime were; Thomas Kincade and Bob Ross. I commented they were decent painters, but not great artists. I said Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and Monet were great artists. Most recently I would say Ansel Adams. We disagreed on this, but I would bet one would be hard pressed to see TK and BR in major museum collections or studied in Art history. I find QT arrogant, funny and amusing, but he is not a great film maker. IMHO.

[wushuliu]

Dude, just... no. You totally missed the point. It was a comedy. Not a political statement, not an historical film lol. Oh man.

 

Um, a slave being torn to pieces by dogs is not comedy. Just sayin'. Yes there are some VERY funny moments, but it is not a comedy.

That's like saying The Wild Bunch is a comedy. Yikes!!!

And by nature of the subject matter it is inherently a political (as in the true definition of the word) statement. That's part of the problem. Especially as he DRAMATICALLY addresses the issue through the film.

This isn't Blazing Saddles.

[neekomax]

Sooooooo, how 'bout them new Sonus Fabers? 

[wushuliu]

Sooooooo, how 'bout them new Sonus Fabers? 

Don't get me wrong man, there are some heeelarious moments in that movie. I think the movie should have been a straight up Sergio Leone How the West Was Won type of film with the Django stuff just a part of it and Leo being the Fonda big baddie from the get go. That's what the film wants to be in tone and approach.

[wushuliu]

My mother said to me one time that the two greatest artists of her lifetime were; Thomas Kincade and Bob Ross. I commented they were decent painters, but not great artists. I said Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and Monet were great artists. Most recently I would say Ansel Adams. We disagreed on this, but I would bet one would be hard pressed to see TK and BR in major museum collections or studied in Art history. I find QT arrogant, funny and amusing, but he is not a great film maker. IMHO.

Soderbergh on the other hand, just gets better and better. He can imitate any genre without looking a copy and can do homage without beating you over the head with look at me look at me. Just saw Haywire. So good. Dude can do anything.

[wushuliu]

History is RICH with more than enough information to outline reasons that people have and do choose political ideology. We don't need a made up version to have morals. We call those myths, and myths get used against the uneducated.

There's a reason myths have been used since the dawn of time vs. facts.

See: Life of Pi.