Red Mosquito

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.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Man, I love Barry Pepper.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

ABNorman wrote:Trying to force myself to watch the Hateful Eight. I hate Tarantino, but love westerns. Yay or nay?

I say nay. It's beautifully shot and the dialogue is really good (and the first 3/5 of the film are all dialogue), but the ending is completely gratuitous. This is not a "western" so much as it is a Reservoir Dogs re-hash in a cabin, but minus the heart of Reservoir Dogs.

Ha, the ending is the best part, QT has no eye for scenery, and the dialogue is pretty questionable.

But I wouldn't suggest subjecting yourself to it if you hate QT.

I won't try to argue the ending or the dialogue -- those things are pretty clearly subjective. But I'm surprised you think he has no eye for scenery. I thought the mountain shots were great, and I loved the shot of JJL catching snowflakes on her tongue with a banged up face. And the Haberdashery was really well staged, with good blocking. It felt like a vital part of the film.

I mean, it certainly wasn't ugly. But you'd have to be a complete imbecile to go to a pretty location and shoot in Super 70 and make something that didn't look at least mildly compelling. But if you compare the cinematography and shot selection in it to what David Lean accomplished with the format, QT is totally out of his depth. The setting and equipment are there, QT just doesn't have the sensibility.

I don't even know who David Lean is, so you've got a more informed frame of reference here, I think. But I will say that the mountains look like they were shot in my back yard here in MT, and both myself and my buddy thought he captured the expansiveness and beauty really well. There's a TON of mountain footage that I see from around here that is poorly shot -- just 'coz the mountains are in the frame doesn't mean I feel their grandiosity. So I guess that's why I was impressed with that aspect.

The more I think about the visual choices in this movie, the less sense they make. Why did he shoot in such a grand format? What was the point? Nature can be used to do a lot of things in film - to glorify (or even apotheosize) the world or the human condition, or, conversely, to emphasize the absurdity of the human condition (or behavior or failings) - but QT doesn't seem to be doing...anything with it, really? He certainly isn't glorifying anything, and he enjoys wallowing in the muck of sadistic humor too much to be making an existential point about mankind's place in the world. It just seems like a case of "This is how it looked in my head, so I did it." Which is fine, but ultimately quite shallow. And, this being QT, I'm sure format nostalgia is at play, but even that feels ignorant when QT seems to have no real understanding of how or why better filmmakers of yesteryear used the format in the first place.

This is an endlessly frustrating movie for me. I really don't know how to feel about it.

PS: You should do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with Lean's work. He's one of the all-time greats.

theplatypus wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

ABNorman wrote:Trying to force myself to watch the Hateful Eight. I hate Tarantino, but love westerns. Yay or nay?

I say nay. It's beautifully shot and the dialogue is really good (and the first 3/5 of the film are all dialogue), but the ending is completely gratuitous. This is not a "western" so much as it is a Reservoir Dogs re-hash in a cabin, but minus the heart of Reservoir Dogs.

Ha, the ending is the best part, QT has no eye for scenery, and the dialogue is pretty questionable.

But I wouldn't suggest subjecting yourself to it if you hate QT.

I won't try to argue the ending or the dialogue -- those things are pretty clearly subjective. But I'm surprised you think he has no eye for scenery. I thought the mountain shots were great, and I loved the shot of JJL catching snowflakes on her tongue with a banged up face. And the Haberdashery was really well staged, with good blocking. It felt like a vital part of the film.

I mean, it certainly wasn't ugly. But you'd have to be a complete imbecile to go to a pretty location and shoot in Super 70 and make something that didn't look at least mildly compelling. But if you compare the cinematography and shot selection in it to what David Lean accomplished with the format, QT is totally out of his depth. The setting and equipment are there, QT just doesn't have the sensibility.

I don't even know who David Lean is, so you've got a more informed frame of reference here, I think. But I will say that the mountains look like they were shot in my back yard here in MT, and both myself and my buddy thought he captured the expansiveness and beauty really well. There's a TON of mountain footage that I see from around here that is poorly shot -- just 'coz the mountains are in the frame doesn't mean I feel their grandiosity. So I guess that's why I was impressed with that aspect.

The more I think about the visual choices in this movie, the less sense they make. Why did he shoot in such a grand format? What was the point? Nature can be used to do a lot of things in film - to glorify (or even apotheosize) the world or the human condition, or, conversely, to emphasize the absurdity of the human condition (or behavior or failings) - but QT doesn't seem to be doing...anything with it, really? He certainly isn't glorifying anything, and he enjoys wallowing in the muck of sadistic humor too much to be making an existential point about mankind's place in the world. It just seems like a case of "This is how it looked in my head, so I did it." Which is fine, but ultimately quite shallow. And, this being QT, I'm sure format nostalgia is at play, but even that feels ignorant when QT seems to have no real understanding of how or why better filmmakers of yesteryear used the format in the first place.

This is an endlessly frustrating movie for me. I really don't know how to feel about it.

PS: You should do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with Lean's work. He's one of the all-time greats.

I agree with parts of this. In some ways the interiors felt more expansive than the scenery, with the distance between each side of the room underlying racial and political divides. I thought Richardson's "bag of tricks" approach (split diopter, rack focus, depth of field) was effective and evocative, and the scenery was pretty enough to look at that I didn't mind the relative redundancy of the format. It is an odd movie though.

Kaius wrote:I've watched "Home" way too many times recently because my kids love it. I wasn't crazy about it the first time I saw it, but I've come around on it quite a bit. The soundtrack helps a lot, but that movie hits all the right emotional notes.

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.

Kaius wrote:Nope. Is it similar?

tragabigzanda wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Kaius wrote:I've watched "Home" way too many times recently because my kids love it. I wasn't crazy about it the first time I saw it, but I've come around on it quite a bit. The soundtrack helps a lot, but that movie hits all the right emotional notes.

you ever see Gnomeo & Juliet?

I saw Tromeo & Juliet. Does that count?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Jason Statham might be the greatest actor of all time