Seen any good films lately? [2]

Ringdrotten wrote:Inglourious Basterds was on last night ... I can't understand why people think this is a bad movie

I love Inglourious Basterds -- it's probably my favorite Tarantino movie -- but I think I can understand why it has its detractors. It's certainly one of his most Tarantino-y movies, so if you're not already sold on his style, it might rub you the wrong way. I think the issue of expectations was also an important one. People who went in expecting an action film centered on the commandos or a sober look at WWII resistance a la Defiance would have been disappointed (the former especially was a common cause for complaints due to misleading trailers).

David H wrote:And the whole "Bear Jew" thing was head-bang face-palm worthy    

I didn't entirely get the Bear Jew character until I learned that Tarantino wanted him to be played by Adam Sandler. Suddenly that introductory scene (the long walk out of the tunnel and the slow reveal) made a lot more sense. Imagine this, ending with a baseball bat-wielding Sandler at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD1y-XvreNc#t=4m57

Not sure this would make you feel differently about it being dumb, but Tarantino's films have always had a lot of weird/dumb moments for the sake of comedy. It can make for some odd tonal shifts but I think he makes it work. I watched Reservoir Dogs just the other night and it was alternately funny and horrifying (ear scene).

Here's the trouble for me though, Eldo. That does make it clearer to me what he was trying for, and I certainly don't mind inside jokes, but a joke that needs to be explained shouldn't be a major part of the story. It's just bad story telling.

Every time I hit one of those "odd tonal shifts" I'm jarred out of the moment and into critical thinking. Then I find myself picking the film apart, which is really not what I want to be doing. I like the darkness and humor when it works, but when it doesn't it's hard for me to just shake it off.

But that said, I know I'm harsher on Tarantino than some other directors because I really do like him.

Thinking more on this.  Sergio Leone has clearly been a strong influence on QT, and SL has a wicked sense of humor that often contrasts with brutal violence.

But I don't ever feel the same jarring tonal changes, even in the early SL films that seem to be a part of QT's.

What's going on here?

Do the Tarantino fans (I'm looking particularly at you, Eldo and Ringo) think this is a fair comparison?

For what its worth I think your right Dave, SL moves into almost a parody within his films,often at a tense,"Im gonna blow yer brains out" moment, effortlessly. Almost as if we are seeing thru the characters eyes & the character is having an after thought that we can see. Also, SL made his characters so natural to look at, Ie: unshaven, sweaty, dirty clothes, that it was hard to tell "goodies" from "baddies" just by sight alone. In fact, you could feel, not necessarily compassion, but at least SOME feeling for either. I love the early "Spaghetti" films, the dramatic "will he,wont he" moments, The "eyeballing" The male testosterone building up to bursting levels, even when the films had cheesy moments I still look back & like them. There was no feeling of time, or hurrying, it flowed like a long, summer river. I enjoy QT a lot, I THINK ive seen them all, but at times the tonal changes I THINK your on about felt a bit...snappy ? get em in & get the joke ? By being clever & slick QT lost the subtleness, the 'thing'we recognize easily cos we ourselves use subtly also, ?  

Well, I'm a huge fan of Sergio Leone too, and I love how his films (and Morricone's music) have influenced QT's films, even if this influence is very obvious at times. I agree that QT's movies can strike "false notes" as you put it (though I quite like them, like Brad Pitt's and Michael Fassbender's exaggerated accents ), but this is something I've never experienced while watching a Sergio Leone movie. I'm not sure why either. I think perhaps the brutality is more extreme in QT's films, to such an extent that it becomes surreal. One scene can be completely realistic, and then out of nowhere you've got a guy smashing another's head in with a baseball bat or a woman slicing up a hundred japanese swordsmen. It's just out of place in any movie. Violence in Leone's films can be brutal, but it doesn't come across as some psycho's wild fantasies.

azriel wrote:By being clever & slick QT lost the subtleness, the 'thing'we recognize easily cos we ourselves use subtly also, ?  

You know, Azriel, when you put it like that, I can't help but make comparisons between QT and PJ.  Neither of them can resist an over-the-top battle, a cliff dangle, or the equivalent of a fart joke.  Not that I don't enjoy all of these things myself, but not at the expense of the storytelling.  And I KNOW they can both be first rate storytellers if they can just rein in their Attention Deficit Disorder long enough finish.  In that way, they're almost the opposite of Leone with his infinite patience.

Ringdrotten wrote:I think perhaps the brutality is more extreme in QT's films, to such an extent that it becomes surreal.

And maybe that's the step I'm not making when I watch a Tarantino film.  For me, the brutality and blood itself isn't a trigger for suspension of disbelief.   I need more help to make that jump to the surreal ( something like an Morricone theme!  )

And by the way, there's no doubt that QT spatters more blood than SL, but isn't the raw brutality of looking into the eyes of Henry Fonda as he shoots the little boy in "Once Upon a Time in the West" pretty much the equal of anything QT has done?

Dave, that the Fonda scene has MORE impact than a bucket of raspberry goo ! Some things hit home more than blood & guts, which when faced with it continuously, you get de-sensitized to it. And as for your comment on Peejers, Id have to say I agree with you  

[quote="David H"]

azriel wrote:
And by the way, there's no doubt that QT spatters more blood than SL, but isn't the raw brutality of looking into the eyes of Henry Fonda as he shoots the little boy in "Once Upon a Time in the West" pretty much the equal of anything QT has done?

Yes, but that's the kind of brutality that takes you aback, shocks you. The searching scene you mentioned in IB is nearer to that kind of brutality than what you see in for example Kill Bill and Django Unchained - Kill Bill style brutality is just brutality for good measure, as is "Bear Jew" brutality in IB and Django shootout/massacre style brutality. I like all these films, but I'll be the first to admit that QT exaggerates the violence, particularly in Kill Bill and Django Unchained. I never felt Leone exaggerated the violence like that.

And like you say, Morricone's music and Sergio Leone's style is an unbeatable combination - the best example I can think of is the way this song was used in the film you mentioned, Once Upon a Time in the West

Didnt SL & EM grow up as friends when they were kids ? They both had a 'feel' for the right music for the right film, they were 'in tune' with each other so it reflected in the things they did. I think having that bond is untouchably special & delivers Art that can live for decades.

The only Western I truly consider to be great and love, Once Upon a Time in the West.

I like his others, I can watch and enjoy them, but for me that film was his pinnacle and the pinnacle of the genre.
Every other Western since is just his stuff not done as well.

Hmm, there are a few "modern" Westerns I like a lot - Wyatt Earp, The Assassination of Jesse James and Unforgiven. I liked 3:10 to Yuma too. But I get that feeling too, Petty. It's almost like reading fantasy that isn't LotR - it might be great, but it'll never be Tolkien

It's almost like reading fantasy that isn't LotR - it might be great, but it'll never be Tolkien- Ringdrotten

That is precisely my feeling- someone has done it so well that everything afterwards can very good, but never quite as good.

I sometimes think it's not a coincidence that the best westerns were made by men who had lived through war. There's no doubt that some of the moral issues that are just below the surface are now discussed more openly under the topic of PTSD.

As Ringo pointed out, Bronson's character is developed far more by the score than by the dialog, almost like in an old silent movie. Same with Robards, and Claudia Cardinale. I think that's why people keep comparing SL's movies to opera.

Several years ago, I watched the Fist full of Dollars/Few Dollars More/Good,Bad&Ugly all together in a marathon. I'm thinking now I'd like to watch Once Upon a Time in the West/ Duck you Sucker/Once Upon a Time in America the same way. It would take something like 12 hours, but I bet the epic sweep would be like nothing else on film!  

I've not seen "Duck you Sucker", but Once Upon a Time in America is another great movie. It's a shame Jackson is pissing so hard on 3+ hour films lately, because people like Sergio Leone, Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather") and, ironically, Jackson himself 10-12 years ago really showed us how it's possible to make fantastic movies if you only dare to cross the 120 minute line (at least in my humble opinion Jackson made fantastic movies before he went on to ruin TH). 3-4 hour films allow so much more character development and storytelling. Like the film Wyatt Earp (1994) that I mentioned above - a long, slow-paced film, but so much more rewarding than your average western. It's a shame we don't see films of this sort so often these days.

I agree completely Ringo. When talking about epic length movies, you've got to mention Lawrence of Arabia. Leone is shooting deserts, and tiny people in huge landscapes in a way that would be a total ripoff it he wasn't so $%##$ good at it!

I don't think I've seen Wyatt Earp yet. I'll have to give it a try.

Another one that probably belongs on this list is Heaven's Gate by Michael Camino. Has anybody else seen it? It seems to divide people.

I've not seen either. I've been meaning to see Lawrence of Arabia for a while, though, perhaps I should do something about that

Well I definitely need to watch some Sergio Leone movies because this conversation is really interesting.

Ringdrotten wrote:I've not seen either. I've been meaning to see Lawrence of Arabia for a while, though, perhaps I should do something about that

I was lucky enough to see Lawrence during the 50th anniversary theatrical revival a couple of years ago. It's phenomenal. Try to see it on as big a screen as possible, though. The widescreen 70mm cinematography is jaw-dropping.

Eldorion wrote:

I was lucky enough to see Lawrence during the 50th anniversary theatrical revival a couple of years ago.  It's phenomenal.  Try to see it on as big a screen as possible, though.  The widescreen 70mm cinematography is jaw-dropping.

Indeed!

And the same advice about the biggest screen possible goes for Sergio Leone films too.   

You can watch the Leone movies in any order, but just FYI they're often considered as two trilogies which taken altogether cover American history from the Civil War to the 1960's.

The Eastwood "Dollar" triology covers Civil War and Wild West and chronologically starts with "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" (though it was the last of the 3 to be made).

"The Once Upon a Time" trilogy covers Coming of Railroads to 1960's. "Once Upon a Time in the West" is the first in the second trilogy both chronologically and in order of filming.

Either tGtBatU or OUaTitW would be fine places to start.

Whenever someone mentions Lawrence of Arabia I remember this Peter O'Toole story Peter Sellers told on Parkinson.

I saw Miyazaki's latest (and probably last) film today: The Wind Rises.  I had to drive into the city to go to an arthouse theatre in order to see the film, but this ended up being a really good thing because they were showing the subtitled version. :DI was expecting them to show the localized English version, but the film began with the opening logos and credits all in Japanese and I got excited.  Honestly, this film is so damn Japanese-y that I can't imagine having watched it in English, even though I normally don't mind dubbing.  I was warned before I saw it not to expect a conventional sort of movie.  This feels like a movie that was made very much to Miyazaki's own interests, and while I won't say that's a bad thing, it did leave me feeling a little hollow by the end.  I don't wanna get into too many specifics, but I don't think it walked the line between fantasy and reality as smoothly as it could have, and I strongly disliked the resolution of the romance.  However, it was a very pretty movie to look at, as expected, and the sound wasn't as distracting as I'd feared.  The sound effects for planes were done entirely by people humming and sputtering into microphones, and the main character was voiced by (in)famous anime director Hideaki Anno, who is not a professional voice actor.  However, neither of these were jarring past a brief adjustment period, though Anno's performance sounded very different from all of the other voice actors (and it wasn't helped by the character being 30 years younger than him early in the film).

Oh, one more thing.  Because the film is about the designer of the Mitsubishi Zero, there was some controversy before the film came out about whether or not Miyazaki was ignoring or downplaying Japan's conduct during World War II.  Having seen the film, he certainly tried to make this a moral conflict for the protagonist, but it didn't really go anywhere.

Spoiler:

Thanks for the review Eldo. As you know I'm looking forward to this one.

That's one of the things I've been wondering about. Miyazaki's anti-war credentials seem to me to be above reproach, and yet at the same time his love of the airplanes of war is beyond question.  How to reconcile the two? It sounds like maybe he still hasn't, but then that's very Japanese, I guess.

Since it's probably his last film, I'm OK with it's being challenging.  Even if I don't love it instantly, I'm sure I'll watch it many times when it finally comes out on DVD.