Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I miss the days of just watching movies for entertainment

Spoiler: show

Finally he makes a movie about something, the fear of not being useful anymore...and then what? another meta ending? this time with Manson and Tate? He did won me back with the final shot and the title...almost as if he knew this and is telling me man, this is a little story. Not the real thing.....that was cool.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

tragabigzanda wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Saw it yesterday, and i like it very much. Is this the best one? For me, no. I was very into it until the end. Di Caprio is incredible, what a great star. I need QT to make a movie with Tom Cruise please.

Spoiler: show

Finally he makes a movie about something, the fear of not being useful anymore...and then what? another meta ending? this time with Manson and Tate? He did won me back with the final shot and the title...almost as if he knew this and is telling me man, this is a little story. Not the real thing.....that was cool.

Yeah man, it’s a fairytale

tragabigzanda wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Saw it yesterday, and i like it very much. Is this the best one? For me, no. I was very into it until the end. Di Caprio is incredible, what a great star. I need QT to make a movie with Tom Cruise please.

Spoiler: show

Finally he makes a movie about something, the fear of not being useful anymore...and then what? another meta ending? this time with Manson and Tate? He did won me back with the final shot and the title...almost as if he knew this and is telling me man, this is a little story. Not the real thing.....that was cool.

Yeah man, it’s a fairytale

VinylGuy wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Saw it yesterday, and i like it very much. Is this the best one? For me, no. I was very into it until the end. Di Caprio is incredible, what a great star. I need QT to make a movie with Tom Cruise please.

Spoiler: show

Finally he makes a movie about something, the fear of not being useful anymore...and then what? another meta ending? this time with Manson and Tate? He did won me back with the final shot and the title...almost as if he knew this and is telling me man, this is a little story. Not the real thing.....that was cool.

Yeah man, it’s a fairytale

Yeah i get that, but i was thrown away until the very end with the title credits.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: -The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

tragabigzanda wrote:Not only is that the payoff, it’s the exact intention of the scene according to QT (from a podcast interview)

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: -The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mecca wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: -The dent in the car is highly exaggerated. As is all of Lee's movements/dialogue.

QT doesn't have to explain every scene or justify his choices. It's in the text.

- It is, which is one of the reasons I "chose" to believe it was a "fantasy" or "unreliable narrator" moment (until a read an interview with QT where he said it wasn't). My issue with the scene is not that it could be such. It's that... why? What's the point? What's the pay off? How come it doesn't (seemingly) every happen again? Now, regarding Bruce's movements and dialogue, yes, they are exaggerated. The issue becomes, again, why? Is it purposeful or not? And what is the intent? I think people that are taking issue with it have a super valid criticism but I don't think there's just one way to look at it. I felt a tad uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons but my wife felt it was full-on stupid and highly racist.

But are we as an audience allowed to have questions? Are allowed to be critical and interpret on our own? The reason there is a controversy is that it isn't explicit in the text. And if QT is fine with that, then he needs to be fine with people having different takes and opinions about it. If QT isn't fine with it, then the scene is a failure and he didn't a good enough job telling this part of this story.

Is the payoff not that it shows he can hold his own in a fight and isn’t afraid to confront, which comes into play when he smashes the kid in the face for slashing his tire and once again when he takes down Tex during the attempted murders

"Payoff" feels like a super strong word here. But, yeah, I'd say there's a technically a connection there. But nothing new is learned or revealed so it's really thin. Take away the Bruce scene and leave the compound stuff exactly as is. What's different? To me it's exactly the same.