Jump to content

Upcoming Films


Quintus

Recommended Posts

Notice that Alex uses reviews to support his arguments when they do in fact support his argument, otherwise he disregards reviews that do not.

Yeah, but sshh, he thinks nobody is onto him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's something that can't be proven. It's something you feel or you don't. But if someone keeps insisting that that I'm seeing things, I like to prove that I'm not the only one. There are no reviews that say the character conversations of Killing Them Softly feel like Ocean 11 or Soderbergh.

I'm not insisting anything, I'm saying that I don't sense Tarantino. I did read the Soderbergh comparison somewhere, don't remember where though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually looking forward to a new film called the End of the World, directed and starring Seth Rogan.

Don't you know hell is freezing over.

It's about a party at James Franco's house when the end of the world happens. It's got an all star Seth Rogan style cast.

Emma Watson, Jason Segal, Neil Bulk's twin Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Rogan, James Franco, Craig Robinson, sadly no Paul Rudd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually looking forward to a new film called the End of the World, directed and starring Seth Rogan.

Don't you know hell is freezing over.

It's about a party at James Franco's house when the end of the world happens. It's got an all star Seth Rogan style cast.

Emma Watson, Jason Segal, Neil Bulk's twin Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Rogan, James Franco, Craig Robinson, sadly no Paul Rudd.

Yeah it sounds hilarious since they're all playing themselves. I also could have sworn I saw Rudd in one of the set photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pineapple Express turned out to be one of my fave comedies of recent years, so if it's got a cast anywhere near as fun as that then I'm there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went from the Imdb list because it's always 100% accurate but like Koray I saw a pic of Rudd with the rest of the cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. Tarantino's film looks good, but then again the only really, really good movie he's done is Jacke Brown for me. All the others get really ho hum as you're getting older. Too little substance. You just can't build an entire career on pastiche. But he's a skilled filmmaker, I'll give him that.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me Tarantino's masterpiece is Pulp Fiction. Inglorious Basterds gets five stars from me and Reservoir Dogs gets four, as does Kill Bill. Jackie Brown, three. Kill Bill 2, one star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Jackie Brown the most, because it has plot and real characters and proves Tarantino can actually tell a story without resorting to his-now-all-too-familiar bag of tricks and flashy gimmicks. All his other films feel to Horner-ized to me at this point. Entertaining, sure. But it can get really tiring. He lost me with Ingourious Basterds. A film that is incredibly well crafted, but uneven quaity-wise. It (pastiche) just won't do for me anymore.

Having said that, I do love Death Proof for some reason. It's so trashy I can't stop watching it.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in '94, those things weren't gimmicks. They were dazzling and startlingly original. Pulp Fiction felt like something brand new to me. It was an event movie; on humble VHS, without spectacular special effects and car chases. It felt like discovering a great new band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOTR came before SW.

But, no, I can't say I get your meaning. SW is a gimmick because it uses myths and legends is a very -self-concious way to retell them. George Lucas knew that when he was writing it. He was recreating something that already existed and all the setpieces, while technically new, are reference to something else. Same with Avatar. And in this sense, it is a gimmick.

Anyway, Tarantino's style is way more specific and let's stick to that.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, your broad use of the term isn't really acceptable. By your reckoning, you could call pretty much ANYTHING a gimmick - which by your own usage is to effectively "write it off". Which is problematic for all sorts of reasons.

Is J.K. Rowling guilty of producing a "gimmicky" saga because it borrows from Dahl, Tolkien etc? According to you she is.

You need to back-peddle or qualify your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Harry Potter is just that. Yes. There's nothing unique about it. That's my opinion anyway.

But, yeah, when you get to genres it gets a bit tricky. That's why I didn't want to go too deep. It's a different matter altogether.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be argued that Harry Potter is unique in that it is a contempory epic adored by legions of fans, young and old; it single-handedly made reading books cool to kids again; it spurned a massively successful series of movie and merchandise; and it was authored by a woman.

The negative connotations of a "gimmick" make it unfairly applicable in most cases, I'd argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you're British that you think like that. You're so proud of your Potter, the only thing you like more is your Queen. And when she'll die, all you'll be left with is this specky dude, and only then will you realize how shallow he is.

I don't like Harry Potter very much, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the Potter very much and Quint doesnt need Potter to be proud. He has Tolkien and LOTR too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what Crocodile is saying about Tarantino. The thing, he's a very talented director and writer, but he always seems to be trying to emulate a prevalent style of filmmaking from years ago, and always winking an eye at the audience with it. In a way, it's a sort of a parody. But his movies are always worth watching

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I definitely agree with that - with what he has become. If he isn't careful his movies could become parodies of themselves. But back in '94 this obviously was not an issue.

My gut tells me though that Tarantino is not a one trick pony, which hopefully will be proven as he matures as a director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I do love Death Proof for some reason. It's so trashy I can't stop watching it.

Karol

I found the pace and dialogue to be too indulgent. I thought it was a drag. That protracted conversation in the cafe had me reaching for the remote. I MUCH prefer Planet Terror, which I rather love actually. And it has the seriously hot blonde heroine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the dialogue to be too indulgent.

It's then when I noticed Tarantino is too much in love with his own dialogue and his films are suffering from it, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with Tarantino showing off his writing skills, because he's fucking brilliant at it. Sort of like Hemingway in a way. Either way though, I don't get that air of pretentiousness from his work. I know Charlie here despises him.

Tarantino uses his characters and their dialogue to build his suspense, rather than using a traditional plot device or the environment. He sits them down at a table and has them talk for like 20 minutes, and I'll be on the edge of my seat. That takes tremendous talent.

Visually he's all flair, homaging every last one of his favorites films, and reusing their music to boot. I have no problems with this because the characters and story are usually all him; and of course no one films that way anymore so it's always a breath of fresh air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarantino uses his characters and their dialogue to build his suspense, rather than using a traditional plot device or the environment. He sits them down at a table and has them talk for like 20 minutes, and I'll be on the edge of my seat. That takes tremendous talent.

This. He's very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarantino uses his characters and their dialogue to build his suspense, rather than using a traditional plot device or the environment. He sits them down at a table and has them talk for like 20 minutes, and I'll be on the edge of my seat. That takes tremendous talent.

It takes more talent to have them sit there for 20 minutes and not talk. Anyway, how is it not a problem when I no longer see characters but Tarantino typing his dialog? It wasn't always like this, but lately, due to dialog overdose, it's getting more and more in the way of my enjoyment. Everything is becoming the more or less the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarantino has his moments but he is never as good as he thinks he is.

Joe Remembering Tarantino's bit part in Golden Girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.