criterionforum.org

Still looks like a mess.

For all the jokes I ever made about this film, I honestly had no idea it would look this absurdly bad

Pitt's accent is not only bad but inconsistent. When he says "or not" around 1:17 he sounds like DiCaprio's Howard Hughes.

I have seen nothing regarding this film that looks even remotely interesting to me.

The trailers almost look intentionally bad. I have never judged a movie by it's trailer, as I have seen some awesome movies with terrible trailers, and vice-a-versa.

Having liked most of what Tarantino has put out, I look forward to this film.

Nick James's review in the latest issue of Sight and Sound nails Tarantino and the film arguing that is a example of "cinematic indigestion" because the film is merely a composite of countless other films that have come before this one; from Fuller's Big Red One to Melville's Army of Shadows. Yet, as James brilliantly points out what separates Tarantino from his idols is that he does not have the intelligence necessary or political acumen to understand what these filmmakers were trying to say with their films. Instead he views them as "cool" documents of violence, and excess without ever really investigating the larger ramifications and impetus for the producing of these men's films. I will see this, only because as a film scholar it is important to have knowledge of what is being produced at this time, but I am certain that Tarantino will never mature into a great filmmaker. Rather he shall continue to be the edgy Michael Bay.

Yup. It's pretty amazing that Tarantino's least infantile film was his debut.

He's suffering from an advanced case of Benjamin Button.

rs98762001 wrote:Yup. It's pretty amazing that Tarantino's least infantile film was his debut.

Really? I thought he peaked with Pulp Fiction, and then his work slowly dwindled in terms of narrative and style in his later films. I would consider his work after Pulp Fiction "guilty pleasures" for me, but in no way illustrations of great film making.

However, I think Tarantino is capable of being a great film maker once he is able to find a subject that is personal enough for him to expose some emotion of his own. Clearly, his greatest flaw is allowing others careers and work to be the bedrock of his films.

I'd say that Jackie Brown was his last film before degrading completely into 'look what movies I've seen' mode. It also is his film with the strongest characters.

knives wrote:I'd say that Jackie Brown was his last film before degrading completely into 'look what movies I've seen' mode. It also is his film with the strongest characters.

Agreed. It's also very well directed. In particular, Tarantino shows an incredible facility with close-ups. He uses them here constantly, holds them for a longer than average length, but always seems to know when to cut away before the device loses its power. Everything he's done since is shit, and I have no doubt that this will be his nadir.

Harvey Weinstein puts the editing rumors to fucking rest.

On a recent trip back from Europe I watched both Kill Bill volumes on the plane and enjoyed them as style-laden and absurd. That's about all I can say for it, it's a great movie for a plane ride. Not one I'd buy for my library, though.

This movie looks pretty awful. It's the first of his since Pulp Fiction that I've not been interested in seeing in the theater.

New international trailer.

This is the third or fourth trailer now and they still don't seem certain how to sell it - not a good sign. I still want to see it for myself but I hope Quentin has it in him to pull off another film like Jackie Brown which I feel is his one film that can lay a claim to being a masterpiece. I don't think he's been as efficient, sophisticated, tender and grown-up again as in this film. Get QT to adapt another Elmore Leonard book, or better still, a James Ellroy novel (White Jazz?).

I'm not surprised the trailers are a bit all over the place, given that the film is supposedly mixing a whole bunch of thematic styles. That said, when Eli Roth seems to be giving the most restrained performance, that can't be a good thing.

The Weinsteins are desperate to make sure guys will go see this.

Tarantino confirms the final cut will run one minute longer than what was shown at Cannes.

filmnoir1 wrote:Nick James's review in the latest issue of Sight and Sound nails Tarantino and the film arguing that is a example of "cinematic indigestion" because the film is merely a composite of countless other films that have come before this one; from Fuller's Big Red One to Melville's Army of Shadows. Yet, as James brilliantly points out what separates Tarantino from his idols is that he does not have the intelligence necessary or political acumen to understand what these filmmakers were trying to say with their films. Instead he views them as "cool" documents of violence, and excess without ever really investigating the larger ramifications and impetus for the producing of these men's films. I will see this, only because as a film scholar it is important to have knowledge of what is being produced at this time, but I am certain that Tarantino will never mature into a great filmmaker. Rather he shall continue to be the edgy Michael Bay.

You don't write like a film scholar.

Is this the first time a producer has publically panned his own film?

ContactMusic is notoriously unreliable for their "news" so take that item with a gigantic box of salt.

Antoine Doinel wrote:ContactMusic is notoriously unreliable for their "news" so take that item with a gigantic box of salt.

Yeah, funny how those quotes aren't in the actual GQ interview that was previously posted above.

Edit: I'm sorry. This quote is in there:

What’s the prequel?
I’m not tellin’ you! [But] Brad wants to do Inglorious II. We all want to do it. And the movie hasn’t even come out yet!

So, you know, it's partly accurate.

Isn't the "Jaw" line stolen ad-verbatim from a bad Cannes review?

It's fake? Damn it and I thought that was funny.