I couldn’t find another thread about the new Tarantino movie so here this is.
I just watched the trailer and must say that I am looking forward to this movie. It could be epic in 70mm.
Nice cast. I’m looking forward to it.
How does Tarantino expect to get away with calling this his eighth film? Even if you don’t count movies he wrote or produced or appeared in and don’t count his first movie My Best Friend’s Birthday (which he chooses to ignore) and don’t count Four Rooms or Sin City where he only directed part of the movie and don’t count his television work, you still have nine.
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill: Volume 1
Kill Bill: Volume 2
Death Proof
Inglourious Basterds
Django Unchained
The Hateful Eight
And if he’s counting Kill Bill as one movie, he owes me a refund because I had to buy two separate tickets to go see it.
Death proof wasn’t actually a movie, was it? It was part of an anthology.
He should count it as half a movie.
I know, I know. Don’t look at me like that.
Kill Bill was originally planned as a single movie wasn’t it? In a sense, it’s still one story. It’s in the title Part 1 and Part 2. It was written as a single story line. Yeah I know, this argument doesn’t hold water when you compare it to the Lord of the Rings trilogy does it? Oh I just looked that up, and The Lord of the Rings was indeed written in three volumes.
Then again, it never occurred to me to make sure that this really was his 8th movie. What does it matter?
I am very unimpressed with the trailer. Convinces me that this is going to be a pointless blood-fest movie. Hardly indicates that it has a story at all.
Bad movies have interesting trailers all the time (Vacation). It’s uncommon for a good movie to have a bad trailer.
Yeah, but this trailer is aimed at random people looking for a western. It is aimed at people who like Tarantino movies.
Tolkien would’ve have said that it’s one story, which he divided into 6 parts. Putting it out in 3 chunks was purely a publisher’s decision, and Tolkien just had to come up with 3 titles.
The trailer makes it look like a parallel universe companion piece to Django Unchained. The reference to bounty hunters who sit on a hill, shoot the wanted individual and throw him over a horse was 100% Christoph Waltz’s MO.
Speaking of whom, there also looked like a character who could have/should have been Christoph Waltz, but has an English accent instead. CW must have had a schedule conflict.
I had the same reaction to that trailer. This just looks like a bad movie to me.
That’s Tim Roth, another from Tarantino’s stable of actors.
Put me down as another who thought it was as shitty trailer and that it makes the movie look shitty as well.
To be fair, tho, Tarantino lost me with Inglourious Basterds, specifically when he used David Bowie’s Cat People as background music for a movie set 40 years prior to the song’s writing. It was totally inappropriate for the scene and for the movie, IMO; it took me right out of the film and placed me squarely in 2010. That’s shitty filmmaking, IMO; YMMV. Once I saw the trailers for Django I knew to stay away from that crapfest. Suck too, because I still think Pulp Fiction is the greatest movie ever made and I think the guy has a lot of talent, I just think he’s squandering it at the moment.
Django was stupid awesome. That is to say, a heterogenous swirl of stupid and awesome.
And yet you don’t mind the ahistorical ending?
Anachronisms in film are an interesting subject, especially musically. Consider, for example, the orchestra. You go to see any big budget Shakespeare adaption, odds are pretty good that it’ll have a full orchestral score. But, assuming the production is a period piece, that’s a far, far larger anachronism than having a Bowie song in a WWII movie - the full orchestra was an early 19th century invention, a good three hundred years after Shakespeare’s death. (And it’s worse if you’re watching one of his history plays!) Similar examples abound: Karl Orff’s music is primarily known today because it was used in the movie Excalibur. King Arthur supposedly ruled in the fifth or sixth century. Orff died in 1982 - as it happens, a year after Bowie released “Cat People.” Or, closer to the subject at hand, consider Ennio Morricone. A Fistful of Dollars has one of the all time great original movie scores - and it sounds absolutely nothing like anything being produced in the 19th century.
Well that’s a nice rationalization, but no. “Cat People” in Inglourious Basterds is closer in spirit and execution to “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head” in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
You are half right.
Do you feel that way about all movies with anachronistic music?
The soundtrack in A Knight’s Tale, for example, is one of its best features.
All of that is true, Miller and worthy of discussion; my specific problem with this instance was that the Bowie song is, for me, indelibly linked to the early '80s. The production, the lyrics, the instrumentation are all very dated and completely unlike anything else in the film. No other piece of music broke that 4th wall, no visual imagery, no dialogue, no costume or set piece… yet for some reason, Tarantino deliberately, IMO, chose to tear down the 4th wall just before the climax of the film.
YMMV but for me, it was such an abysmal decision, seemingly without any compelling reason, symbolism, innuendo or narrative gain in mind, that it lowered my opinion of him and my expectations for his future work a thousandfold. It would be like remaking Elephant Man but when is unmasked, showing his deformity with a Tasmanian Devil tattoo on it. WTF???
Not necessarily, no. But when it conflicts with the rest of the film’s mien and milieu, as this song did, then there better be a good reason for it, IMO, and in this instance, there was absolutely no reason at all that I’ve ever been able to discern.