Film/Video Discussion Thread - The Bear and Badger

acemuzzy

RedDave2 wrote:

How do you enjoy a movie more yet not think it's better?

Uh quite easily? Or are you saying enjoyment and quality perfectly correlate?

hylian_elf

Muzzy enjoys movies that he thinks are worse.

acemuzzy

You guys

b0r1s

Kow wrote:

Shrodinger's Ebert.

Nice.

tin_robot

Chalk me up as another who didn't like Once Upon a Time In Hollywood. I spoke to a friend who'd seen it and didn't know anything about the Sharon Tate murders and thus found the film even more pointless. (I'd argue what little emotional heft and potency it does have relies entirely on you knowing those events.). Like most Tarantino movies there are some great moments, but also a lot of self indulgent noodling.

I'm not sure Tarantino losing his way is entirely down to Sally Menke's death. Exactly when he became crap seems to come down to how you feel about Inglorious Basterds, and whether you include Death Proof at all - but she edited both and I don't rate either. (Basterds, in particular, has the "great moments but too much rambling" problem that is now the Tarantino benchmark.)

Meanwhile I watched Saltburn the other day. Not a lot to say - many of you have nailed it already - great performances, looks pretty, but ultimately vapid and pointless.

Exploring why it fails is inherently spoilery, but it doesn't help that literally no-one in the film is likeable.

Spoilers:

Spoiler:

I thought the most disappointing thing about it was that it ultimately has nothing to say.

regmcfly

Was wondering if Inglorious would be brought up. A reminder that Pull and Jackie are both well over two hours long, and Kill Bill was lopped.

I actually think Inglorious has as much space to breathe as it needs, and yet still be quite tightly plotted. I'd argue the opening and Fassbinder scenes show how you do slow but intense pacing.

R.e. saltburn , I was much the same, fun and chaotic but said less than Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers, which is even more fun and chaotic

RamSteelwood

I think my thoughts on one upon a time, was it was like a series of acting sketches. Well acted but often boring and not really linking together into an interesting story. Generally the QT style for me and rarely hangs together into an interesting film.
Pulp fiction still the only one of his I'd prob choose to rewatch.
Most of the others either get a 'meh' by the time it finishes or I've turned them off bored halfway through

b0r1s

Nailed it with the Saltburn review Tin.

As for Basterds it’s the last QT film I enjoyed and it’s mainly down to a number of set pieces that hang together, the opening interrogation (introducing us to Waltz in such a brilliant way), the bar scene (Fassbender is brilliant here as is the guy playing the SS officer) and the panning shot in the cinema, making it a better film than it should be.

Edit - or wot Reg said.

poprock

Tarantino does good atmosphere. And some great individual scenes. But I haven’t really loved any of his movies since Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I’m saying that as a style over substance guy.

Olimite

Once Upon a Time was overlong and, bar a few decent moments, utter tripe.

Kow

Tarantino would probably make a better second location director, hemmed in by a proper director. He can make some decent scenes, but most of his movies are tedious slogs. I'd still point to Deathproof as not only Tarantino's worst but one of the worst films I've ever seen. There is literally nothing redeeming about it. It's hard to reconcile such a pile of tripe with any decent director, let alone a supposed Hollywood auteur.

MattyJ

I really liked OUATIH

davyK

tin_robot wrote:

I thought the most disappointing thing about it was that it ultimately has nothing to say.

y'see - maybe that was the point. A commentary on that type of existence. Maybe I'm being overly generous?

I mean what happens next? Now what?

That could be asked of anyone who is in the elite.... "now what?"

davyK

Tarantino can drag things successfully out if there is plenty of crackling dialogue. Was the hallmark of his early stuff.

I genuinely can't remember much about OUATIH apart from the ending and Pitt beating up a hippy who punctured his tyre and Bruce Lee.

I can remember starting to think about reaching for the remote but I stayed with it. Must look back and see what I said about it. I remember being impressed with Pitt's physique.

davyK

hmmm..

davyK in 2021 wrote:

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. Enjoyed this. Leo and Brad are great in it. And how Pitt keeps that washboard at his age...deserves an oscar for that alone. There is something gratifying about that final sequence that is hard to explain, just as the cinema sequence in Basterds is. And there's a nod to it in Hollywood. Being able to strike out at cunts from the past mines something in my psyche at least. Not as punchy and snappy as a Q film but still excellent. This alternate universe genre is very enjoyable. Will be a shame when Q makes his 10th.

g.man

I presume you were drunk when you wrote that?

davyK

perhaps!!

RamSteelwood

Or been at the smints?

b0r1s

I’ve just given the new Indy another 30 minutes and nope, just can’t stand it. Utter wank.

davyK

I can't bring myself to watch that. That tedious glass skull / alien thing from a few years ago was enough.

EvilRedEye

I thought it was the worst one:

EvilRedEye wrote:

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - I think this is the worst one. I was honestly quite bored for a lot of it. People have made note of the 2 hour 35 minute runtime - you might think they overstuffed the plot or something but they didn’t, it’s just flabby and needed the extra half hour leaving on the cutting room floor. What’s worse, it’s the expensive actions sequences, usually involving CGI that are the most flabby - it feels like a real waste of resources. It’s one of the most expensive films of all time but absolutely doesn’t look it. A lot of the CGI is as dull and unengaging as Crystal Skull. The plot is also lifeless and dour. I simply don’t understand why they made the film. You could slag off Crystal Skull but at least it is reasonably effective at justifying revisiting the characters (even if some of the execution could have been better) and giving them what could easily have been a final sign off. I honestly regret that this was made.

poprock

I disagree. It’s bad but I think Crystal Skull was worse. Neither film was necessary. Both do the OG trilogy a disservice.

EvilRedEye

I can see why it would be the other way round for some people if they had particularly low tolerance for Crystal Skull’s bullshit but I’d rewatched Crystal Skull the day before so I’m certain of my personal ranking.

Dial of Destiny superficially comes across as a return to what Indiana Jones is supposed to be about but in some ways I think it’s even more unfaithful to the original trilogy than Crystal Skull. Indy comes across as a diminished, embittered old man in Dial, the entire film is badly edited and consequently unfun and ends the series on an oddly sour note.

Spoiler:

Bollockoff

Honestly I've never understood funny whip crack man.

Funkstain

Agree with ERE on this. Crystal skull was just a really shit Indy film. DoD ruins everything about all of them: all of this fun excitement life was for naught

Spoiler:

What really were they thinking? Quite apart from the awful film making (shit editing, shit effects, shit lighting, shit acting, shit script and shit story)?

ShabbyMcCrabby

Kow wrote:

Tarantino would probably make a better second location director, hemmed in by a proper director. He can make some decent scenes, but most of his movies are tedious slogs. I'd still point to Deathproof as not only Tarantino's worst but one of the worst films I've ever seen. There is literally nothing redeeming about it. It's hard to reconcile such a pile of tripe with any decent director, let alone a supposed Hollywood auteur.

Deathproof was never meant to be a full length film though, only as part of Grindhouse until Grindhouse didn't make any money and they did a full length release. I'd say in the Grindhouse version it's great, couple of short scenes of some Tarantino dialogue and then a fun car chase.

Although I suppose seeing as he had enough material to make a full length release maybe he was planning on a Director's Cut all along but to me the only true version is on Grindhouse.

regmcfly

I'm with ERE, he pretty much nailed It that the editing is that hyperkinetic modern style that doesn't fit Indy. It's not quite Bohemian Rhapsody, but it sucks.

Again, I'd like to be an editor in another life.

afgavinstan

Bollockoff wrote:

Honestly I've never understood funny whip crack man.

As much as I love Harrison Ford, this. All of the Indys just... Meh, from me.

Bollockoff

Doesn't even announce his special moves when punching Nazis.

ShabbyMcCrabby

regmcfly wrote:

I'm with ERE, he pretty much nailed It that the editing is that hyperkinetic modern style that doesn't fit Indy. It's not quite Bohemian Rhapsody, but it sucks.

Again, I'd like to be an editor in another life.

DaVinci Resolve is free and pretty easy to learn. Could have a crack and putting some stuff together. I've had fun doing music video stuff for my partner

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories