All Things: Directors

tumblr_o0nodf06zy1qej1i6o1_500.png
 
jerseydevil said:
Initial thoughts on Hateful Eight...**** YEAH.
Click to expand...

I saw it recently....with due respect I disagree. Its not entirely without merit but also very much your typical Tarantino movie following the same Tarantino formula. For a 3 hour movie, just didnt think it was that original nor some epic masterpiece. I was thinking how Tarantino is a lot like the band Green Day....provided you have no perspective of history on their genre-its easy to see how some would think highly of both of them. But if you have that background and historical perspective you can also see where calling them a bunch of hacks is not completely out of line either.

For example...go Watch Peckinpah and early Scorsese and then watch Tarantino. There is nothing groundbreaking that he is doing, and the most notable things about his movie is his skill of using dialogue, but even with that asset of clever dialogue-there really is nothing new that he didnt use in Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. I dont think its unfair to say Hateful Eight is simply Reservoir Dogs in a Cold, Western Setting. It would be a bit like saying Tim Burtons next movie is a going to be a quirky dark visual atmospheric comedy with Helena Bonham Carter.

Once again, I dont think its totally without merit-but not a movie I would not watch over and over again....or twice for that matter. And for the record...loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction-at that time they were totally original and the dialogue was clever. But its the same formula over and over and over.
 
Last edited:
Hipcheck said:
I saw it recently....with due respect I disagree. Its not entirely without merit but also very much your typical Tarantino movie following the same Tarantino formula. For a 3 hour movie, just didnt think it was that original nor some epic masterpiece. I was thinking how Tarantino is a lot like the band Green Day....provided you have no perspective of history on their genre-its easy to see how some would think highly of both of them. But if you have that background and historical perspective you can also see where calling them a bunch of hacks is not completely out of line either.

For example...go Watch Peckinpah and early Scorsese and then watch Tarantino. There is nothing groundbreaking that he is doing, and the most notable things about his movie is his skill of using dialogue, but even with that asset of clever dialogue-there really is nothing new that he didnt use in Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. I dont think its unfair to say Hateful Eight is simply Reservoir Dogs in a Cold, Western Setting. It would be a bit like saying Tim Burtons next movie is a going to be a quirky dark visual atmospheric comedy with Helena Bonham Carter.

Once again, I dont think its totally without merit-but now a movie I would not watch over and over again....or twice for that matter. And for the record...loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction-at that time they were totally original and the dialogue was clever. But its the same formula over and over and over.
Click to expand...

Well, allow me to retort...

There they are. All the hallmarks of a good Qt bashing. Influences worn on sleeve...check. Qt made a Qt(formula) movie...check. See...I have a different perspective. Yes, he certainly does take whole concepts from his personal collection of faves, but it's what he does with them that I appreciate. You want to compare him to a band...Ok. I am thinking Boogie Knights. Who took a bunch of 70's covers and built a franchise around the concept. Were they using other people's work...sure. But somehow, through showmanship, razzle dazzle, and fun, they made them their own. So yeah...he cribs, but it's part homage, part 'maybe I can make something my own out of it'. Not to harp on The Revenant(which I loathed), but people are falling all over themselves to rave about that, and if you have ever seen Man Called Horse, Jeremiah Johnson etc...well, you have seen better movies for one thing, but you have also seen the majority of the ideas of that movie done better. But yet, no hackusations will be tossed that way. It's become too easy to critique Qt. Maybe because of his 'personality' over-shadowing his work, or whatever. You also bring Tim Burton into the argument. Ok. To go back to the music analogy, even if a director makes the same movie over and over again...if he does it well, where is the harm? AC/DC, Motorhead, Ramones, made a career of that kind of output, and if you have a problem with that, well, thems fighting words. Burton's problem is that he no longer has anything to say. His movies are pretty empty things. I think Qt has a ton of stuff to say, and this movie is brimming with his point of view. Maybe you don't like his voice, but you certainly have to admit he has one. I also disagree with you as far as his dialogue. I think in combination with some of his sharpest writing, he also has learned to surround himself with ACTORS who buy in lock stock and barrel. Can you tell me, are there any contemporaries that get as much out of their actors than Qt? Sam Jackson...who ain't afraid to collect a paycheck, gets to new levels every time they work together. Kurt Russell? Comes out of semi retirement and just does some of his best work in a long time. Walton Goggins. Just terrific. Showy, over the top...yet brilliant. Madsen, Bechir(man he was so subtly good), Tim Roth(not so subtle, just as good) and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Who I have never liked. Just NAILS it. Crazy, simmering anger...just outstanding. So yeah. I happen to think his direction and writing has never been better. Man, even at 3 hrs, that movie flew for me. And Peckinpah may have been the world's angriest man/filmmaker, but I think he would even have been impressed with the 'topper' nature of what Qt did with his clear homage/references. I do not go to see a Qt movie to see 'groundbreaking'. I go to one of his movies to see a man who clearly loves movies make a movie of his own out of all the beloved memories in his head while at the same time giving it his own voice.. Sorry you didn't enjoy it...but I loved it. So with returned due respect, I disagree.

And Green Day blows. :poke:evil:
 
jerseydevil said:
Well, allow me to retort...

There they are. All the hallmarks of a good Qt bashing. Influences worn on sleeve...check. Qt made a Qt(formula) movie...check. See...I have a different perspective. Yes, he certainly does take whole concepts from his personal collection of faves, but it's what he does with them that I appreciate. You want to compare him to a band...Ok. I am thinking Boogie Knights. Who took a bunch of 70's covers and built a franchise around the concept. Were they using other people's work...sure. But somehow, through showmanship, razzle dazzle, and fun, they made them their own. So yeah...he cribs, but it's part homage, part 'maybe I can make something my own out of it'. Not to harp on The Revenant(which I loathed), but people are falling all over themselves to rave about that, and if you have ever seen Man Called Horse, Jeremiah Johnson etc...well, you have seen better movies for one thing, but you have also seen the majority of the ideas of that movie done better. But yet, no hackusations will be tossed that way. It's become too easy to critique Qt. Maybe because of his 'personality' over-shadowing his work, or whatever. You also bring Tim Burton into the argument. Ok. To go back to the music analogy, even if a director makes the same movie over and over again...if he does it well, where is the harm? AC/DC, Motorhead, Ramones, made a career of that kind of output, and if you have a problem with that, well, thems fighting words. Burton's problem is that he no longer has anything to say. His movies are pretty empty things. I think Qt has a ton of stuff to say, and this movie is brimming with his point of view. Maybe you don't like his voice, but you certainly have to admit he has one. I also disagree with you as far as his dialogue. I think in combination with some of his sharpest writing, he also has learned to surround himself with ACTORS who buy in lock stock and barrel. Can you tell me, are there any contemporaries that get as much out of their actors than Qt? Sam Jackson...who ain't afraid to collect a paycheck, gets to new levels every time they work together. Kurt Russell? Comes out of semi retirement and just does some of his best work in a long time. Walton Goggins. Just terrific. Showy, over the top...yet brilliant. Madsen, Bechir(man he was so subtly good), Tim Roth(not so subtle, just as good) and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Who I have never liked. Just NAILS it. Crazy, simmering anger...just outstanding. So yeah. I happen to think his direction and writing has never been better. Man, even at 3 hrs, that movie flew for me. And Peckinpah may have been the world's angriest man/filmmaker, but I think he would even have been impressed with the 'topper' nature of what Qt did with his clear homage/references. I do not go to see a Qt movie to see 'groundbreaking'. I go to one of his movies to see a man who clearly loves movies make a movie of his own out of all the beloved memories in his head while at the same time giving it his own voice.. Sorry you didn't enjoy it...but I loved it. So with returned due respect, I disagree.

And Green Day blows. :poke:evil:
Click to expand...

Sam Jackson is always solid....just didnt see him doing anything in this role that he hasnt done in Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown or any other number of Tarantino appearances. Love Kurt Russell....but once again just didnt think there was anything groundbreaking at all. I actually thought of all the actors....Tim Roth was outstanding as was Walter Goggins. IMO-they gave the two best performances in the movie. And to take a step further I didnt think the dialogue worked for this setting. It was simply to me like "Tarantino goes Western" without actually really doing anything he wouldnt normally do in any other setting. And as I said earlier-to me this movie was basically "Reservoir Dogs the Western" and sure as hell didnt need to be 3 hours long. I dont mind a long movie provided its interesting-this simply wasnt anything new we hadnt seen before. I could very well understand though how newer and younger fans could have their minds blown by the movie though.

I am curious to know though-what did you consider "sharp" in this writing that wasnt done in previous Tarantino movies? You posted the trailer for Hello, Ceaser and the Coen brothers are a good example. No Country for Old Men, Fargo, Lebowski, the folk movie they made whose name escapes me, Oh Brother etc etc. These are all real interesting choices and all very different. Sure there are some staples and coen similarities that are familiar-but all in all they are all very different movies. Speilberg- Jaws, ET....and then Poltergeist for example-all very different movies and themes and dont masterfully. I use them as an example as I just think Tarantino is a directoral one trick pony.

Ill take a step further-in Inglorious Bastards-the choice to have Brad Pitts stupid ass accent was a horrible distracting bad choice. Tarantino would have been wiser to have him use his normal voice. Nice to chat and talk movies with you though. Been a long time since Ive A)been able to watch some never movies and B)critique them in a respectful manner with someone whose opinion I value.
 
Last edited:
Look, with Qt movies you either buy in or you don't. I wanted to like this, and you clearly, not so much. You bring up the Coen Brothers. They don't have 'tendencies'? Just because you change the setting so drastically does not make it groundbreaking or different. Let's face it, if the Coen Brothers wanted to venture out of their comfort zone, how about NOT making a quirky movie with all the odd hallmarks of their career. Every director has style points that they bring to each of their projects. That's why Adam McKay's The Big Short is such a departure. Yet it still has his voice of the underlying humor.
As far as why I though it was his best writing, once again, not groundbreaking...just tight as a drum. You didn't, well...I didn't, want to miss a word. When a director can make words dance like Qt does...I pay attention.
I go back to my original point, I bought tickets for this the MINUTE they went on sale. I went to the Roadshow showing on Christmas morning. So yeah, I had huge expectations. And I was not disappointed. It feels as if you went in with some sort of anti-vibe looking to NOT like this. I say feels because it's my opinion. So yeah, you found fault with it. It seems a sort of 'cool kids' thing these days to toss shade on Old Quentin. Once again...it's an opinion, not an accusation.

Is it a perfect movie? No. Bruce Dern conveniently being at the Lodge, and everyone's familiarity with one another feels a little staged. There is a stretch where the N word is used to really ugly effect. But, as I talked about with someone else, you either buy in or you don't. Qt is not trying to please anyone...he's just trying to make a movie that he thinks people will like. For me, that freedom trumps everything. It's not a 'focus-group' movie with studio interference, it's a director who has almost complete autonomy making a movie. Like I said, for me...it worked. Sorry you didn't enjoy it.

EDIT: I apologize, in my grief at the passing of Alan Rickman this morning I did not see your last paragraph...See, i LOVED Pitt's performance and the speech would not have been as good without the odd accent, in my opinion...

and this part,
Nice to chat and talk movies with you though. Been a long time since Ive A)been able to watch some never movies and B)critique them in a respectful manner with someone whose opinion I value.
Click to expand...

I wanted you to know I missed it entirely. Didn't just gloss over. Agree completely. And I would not have been as passionate had I not felt the same way.
I am truly sorry you didn't have the same experience I did. I am going to see it again tomorrow night, so, like all Qt movies, I will more than likely have new observations the second go round.
 
Last edited:
jerseydevil said:
Look, with Qt movies you either buy in or you don't.
Click to expand...

This is a great point...to me, I buy in less and less with every new movie. Once again, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction arguably restored and revolutionized the genre, and for those movies I bought in, at that time it was something new and fresh. But each movie is simply the same formula of dialogue and brutal graphic violence-all for the sake of driving dialogue & the use of brutal graphic violence.

You make another good point about QT having autonomy in his movies which I think is his downfall....he simply does not know when to reign it in and when spectacle becomes overkill. Its not too different than Lucas putting UFOs in an Indiana Jones movie. Its an absurd idea that should have been quashed from the get go and without that inane idea would have made overall a better film.
 
Last edited:
Hipcheck said:
This is a great point...to me, I buy in less and less with every new movie. Once again, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction arguably restored and revolutionized the genre, and for those movies I bought in, at that time it was something new and fresh. But each movie is simply the same formula of dialogue and brutal graphic violence-all for the sake of driving dialogue & the use of brutal graphic violence.

You make another good point about QT having autonomy in his movies which I think is his downfall....he simply does not know when to reign it in and when spectacle becomes overkill. Its not too different than Lucas putting UFOs in an Indiana Jones movie. Its an absurd idea that should have been quashed from the get go and without that inane idea would have made overall a better film.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but it also speaks to the buy in or don't. Look, you are probably going to be happy when he makes his last film, if he sticks to the plan. I will not. Because I feel even an inferior film(like Django Unchained), is still better than 90% of the focus group drivel selling Happy Meals out there. And your counterpoint to my autonomy argument is valid. It's why David Lee Roth( why do we keep coming back to music?) never truly succeeded without VH. Because the checks and balances were no longer there and Too much DLR proved to be too much DLR. But, who is going to 'reign in' Tarantino? I cannot see that being effective either. I can't see him, in his opinion, compromising his vision and having the same passion he has now. I think that MAYBE what you are feeling is that, in past work, Qt has raided obscure movies(mostly) for his influences. What we are seeing now is a bit of full circle, and now Qt's movies are influenced by...Qt's movies. So you see repeating themes such as the Reservoir Dogs standoff. Which is a valid point. But, and I saw it again last night in glorious 70 mm, on second viewing, the last third of the movie played so much better once I knew what to expect from his standard , almost deliberate attempt(as per usual), to jar you with the last act wicked turn. It's almost as if he tries to take you out of his movies intentionally. And normally I would find this unpleasant, but...and this speaks to your repetitive argument, his standard m.o. of having that 180, and then following it with a flashback where characters you just see die get a return visit, just works really well for me. Always has. Maybe that's why I didn't dig Django so much. Because once Waltz 'left the picture' he didn't get that coda. And we were stuck with Jamie Foxx...who I never really 'felt' as buying in/being a Qt guy. I guess, in principle, I agree with you. Qt does rely on a lot of story structure. He tends, especially the last three, to use almost cartoonish violence, when maybe a little more subtle violence might suffice. But that's where the road diverges. I can't explain it any further than Qt's movies are like comfort food to me. And you might be more of a foodie, looking for him to reinvent himself. Neither opinion is wrong...but it makes for great discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

Share this page

Back
Top