[quote=“blue_lou_boyle”]
I think a lot of peoples problem in here with the film might be that they’ve read the script before hand. This is the type of film thats best experienced on a visceral level - plot plays a much bigger part in it than say Kill Bill. I think the chapter structure tidies up a lot of the pacing issues although I did find certain cuts to be jarring. I could definitely see how it could have been turned into a mini series but i’m glad its a movie, would be nice to see the extra stuff at some point though. Everyone has been so muted with their praise but its up there with There Will be Blood as my favourite film of the decade.
[/quote]
I can seperate it from the script and enjoy it on that level and I did do just that. But to deny the flaws in this is to kid yourself. I gave it four out of five but it’s still flawed.
I dont think its perfect thats why I’d give it 9 rather than 10 out of 10 but I enjoyed it more than nearly every other film i’ve seen in the last 10 years. What film isn’t flawed? and in this case I think its perceived flaws add to its charm.
Yeah Sharpest, same for me. In France we don’t get to have early premieres, I figure it’s because of the Cannes early, early showings. Plus, next week’s schedules are not available yet so I don’t even know in which theatre I’m gonna have to go to see it.
Just back…the film is good. Leaps and bounds better than Death Proof, not as corny as Kill Bill or as hokey as I thought it might be [possibly due to some things taken out after script stage], of course it isn’t perfect or a masterpiece by any means.
I’ll just post a few opinions based on this first viewing:
The opening chapter was sublime [as the script should suggest], and as far as tension and suspense are concerned, was never matched thereafter.
Second chapter was OK, but I would have liked more and it felt a little ham-fisted in places. I didn’t care for the Kill Bill-type gimmicks employed in certain parts. Same for the instantly-recognisable Kill Bill music in chapter 3, took me out.
Third chapter was pretty much what I expected, a little uninteresting in parts. Glad he didn’t include the black and white here anyway.
Fourth was what I expected too. I never got what was so exciting about La Louisiane on the page and didn’t on screen either. Sure, you know what’s coming…but I dunno, it was alright like, the Mexican stand-off at the end of it was great though. And I’m glad he didn’t go full slapstick and do the whole spit-take business…or at least he cut it out. Oh and Til Schweiger is great, he got some of the biggest laughs in this scene. Definitely should have been featured more prominently. Eli Roth wasn’t funny or cool to watch at all, and Omar Doom definitely shouldn’t have been there also. He’s like a little lap dog just.
Chapter five opened with my favourite part of the whole film - Shosanna getting ready while Bowie’s Putting Out Fire blasts over the soundtrack. I just something as cool was used for the big climax too, which wasn’t as thrilling as I thought it would be…dunno, maybe some kickass tune playing over it or something. Overall the music was average, a few good pieces when characters realize certain as you can imagine.
However the main problem with it is the structure and pacing for sure. From the start I wasn’t keen on the Kill Bill-type structure of five chapters to be filmed in different styles. The contrast in tones in annoying at time. Mike Myers scene I just couldn’t wait to be over, it was like we’re suddenly in an Austin Powers movie. Also, how did BJ Novak end up with Aldo at the end…he just appeared in the truck and hadn’t even attended the premiere?
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Oh hell Kinick. Not what I wanted to see.
Do you think the third chapter really plays better in color?
What type of Kill Bill type gimmicks were included?
[/quote]
He used a lot of the same fonts that popped up over freeze frames that introduced certain characters. The narration was very Kill Billish and there was write ups on characters imposed over certain parts to explain who they are and what not. The freeze frames got laughs in some parts but like, it wasn’t necessary to use the same font as he did in Kill Bill.
Very interesting film. Tarantino seems to contrast mature moody filmmaking with exploitation silliness and black comedy in a much more overt way than in his previous films (I mean this in a very good way). He seemed to want to mess with the audience’s head by undermining the seriousness of his scenes (Landa’s Sherlock Holmes pipe) or getting strange reactions out of them (the king kong joke lead to some weird clipped off laughter at my cinema). Another interesting thing was the juxtaposition of Hitler in the audience of Nation’s Pride cheering at the deaths of the allied soldiers with the fact that we’d been doing the same at the Nazis for the whole movie. A sly dig at the audience perhaps?
The movie itself does have a few pacing issues and features some jarring editing (in particular a tendency to cut off the music abruptly seemingly in mid flow), but the characters and content elevate the film above both DP and KB in my opinion. Brad Pitt is great as Aldo, a great comic performance. Landa is both effete and deeply sinister, every seen with him is tense. Eli Roth doesn’t cause any problems, in fact I enjoyed his performance.
On the other hand there’s quite a lot of talk about obscure German films that only a handful of people have seen, including one about a mountain that I would be grateful if anyone could tell me about it because it was totally lost on me. I feared there would be a lot more of this sort of stuff than there was so it didn’t ruin it at all.
I noticed that this film may negate the common complaint about QT’s films that all his characters speak like him. All the characters in this movie speak with a unique voice, none of which reminds you of the director himself. That is probably the best thing about the film as almost all the characters are unique and compelling.
9/10
On a different note; Apparently Donny Donowitz is supposed to be the father of the Lee Donowitz character in True Romance. Don’t know how true that is but cool anyway.
[quote=“Tim12345”]
Very interesting film. Tarantino seems to contrast mature moody filmmaking with exploitation silliness and black comedy in a much more overt way than in his previous films (I mean this in a very good way). He seemed to want to mess with the audience’s head by undermining the seriousness of his scenes (Landa’s Sherlock Holmes pipe) or getting strange reactions out of them (the king kong joke lead to some weird clipped off laughter at my cinema). Another interesting thing was the juxtaposition of Hitler in the audience of Nation’s Pride cheering at the deaths of the allied soldiers with the fact that we’d been doing the same at the Nazis for the whole movie. A sly dig at the audience perhaps?
9/10
[/quote]
Absolutely. The thing seems to be a dig at jingoistic American war films which comes clear in the finale of the film with Pride of the Nation depicting the massacre of faceless American stereotypes in army uniforms reflecting the massacre of faceless German stereotypes in American war films. It all seems to be analyzing the idea of propaganda and how audiences eat that shit up. I mean look at Saving Private Ryan, it’s jingoistic out its ass or even other vietnam films like The Green Berets (which isn’t really praised as much, though). As my literature teacher would say, “it’s very post-modern”. He plays with the conventions well and even turns around what could be AMERICA FUCKIN RULES YEAH! idea into a “are we really like this?” idea.
Here’s the Riefenstahl picture they were talking about in the bar scene (the mountain picture with the ski chase):
[quote=“F.W.”]
Absolutely. The thing seems to be a dig at jingoistic American war films which comes clear in the finale of the film with Pride of the Nation depicting the massacre of faceless American stereotypes in army uniforms reflecting the massacre of faceless German stereotypes in American war films. It all seems to be analyzing the idea of propaganda and how audiences eat that shit up. I mean look at Saving Private Ryan, it’s jingoistic out its ass or even other vietnam films like The Green Berets (which isn’t really praised as much, though). As my literature teacher would say, “it’s very post-modern”. He plays with the conventions well and even turns around what could be AMERICA FUCKIN RULES YEAH! idea into a “are we really like this?” idea.
[/quote]
Yes he did a similar thing in DP about the idea of women as victims in horror/exploitation movies and what that says about the audience and their culture. Seems QT may be entering into the most interesting phase of his career so far making intelligent genre deconstructions rather than straight homages. Another thing that was interesting about IB was the use of blaxploitation style, for example the intro of Hugo Stiglitz (sp?). It seemed out of place but its kind of appropriate when you consider that those films were all about empowered black people as opposed to the previous cinematic depictions of them as subservient to white people, in the same way as this was about empowered Jews as apposed to them being depicted as victims.
[quote=“Tim12345”]
Yes he did a similar thing in DP about the idea of women as victims in horror/exploitation movies and what that says about the audience and their culture. Seems QT may be entering into the most interesting phase of his career so far making intelligent genre deconstructions rather than straight homages. Another thing that was interesting about IB was the use of blaxploitation style, for example the intro of Hugo Stiglitz (sp?). It seemed out of place but its kind of appropriate when you consider that those films were all about empowered black people as opposed to the previous cinematic depictions of them as subservient to white people, in the same way as this was about empowered Jews as apposed to them being depicted as victims.
[/quote]
I have to wonder though, in the way Tarantino talks about his films, if he even acknowledges the probing his films touch on or if he’s just like "yeah that bullshits there but LOOK AT THE SCALPS!"
Like he said about old man films and stuff. Jackie Brown was an impressive and mature piece of cinema. I wrote 25 pages on that thing for fucksake and to hear him put it down recently really blew my brains out. I didn’t get that.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
When did he put that movie down?! How fucking above himself is he if he can’t even appreciate one of his best movies.
[/quote]
Some interview in July. He called it “an old man movie” and said he was done making films like that.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Wow, that was an old man movie? God forbid he spends the rest of his life making Kill Bill, he’s too good a filmmaker to waste his talents like that.
[/quote]
He seems just too eager to please his fanboys who are like “BLOOD! BLOOD! PUSSY! BLOOD!”
He also said he will only do movies that start as a blank paper from now on. Which IMO, his best work came from adapting for Jackie Brown. I heard someone say before, that Tarantino’s films (besides Jackie Brown) is all over the place, because no one around him has the balls to tell him, and have a editor. If he doesn’t come out of his exploitation phase, we will never see his full potential.
