i don’t see anything wrong with the tarantino quote myself (a lot of directors hang around too long making shitty movies, i totally get wanting to retire in your prime), but ferrara is still making good movies as an old timer so he has the right to mock him over it. plus he’s hilarious
'Tino should have stopped after Death Proof but I guess he likes getting punched in that gigantic head of his.
As far as turn your brain off and be entertained for 2 hours it's not bad. The story is better than I thought it would be, although there is still holes. The action is pretty good. Charlize is easy on the eyes, and it doesn't drag on. They've also set it up for a sequel or maybe a series but whether than happens I don't know. When I first heard about it people were talking about it being a female Highlander movie which turned me off (didn't reckon such a thing was needed) and I never even bothered to even watch the preview. However those people were idiots, about the only connection to Highlander is immortality.
If he's that self-aware about directing, you'd think he'd have avoided directing himself into a string of films on the idea of revisionism and changed things up more to stay fresh. But maybe he knew he wouldn't and so his quote fits himself at least.
The revisionism gimmick is played out I agree, but that's clearly not the source of the issue. If it were, Death Proof and The Hateful Eight would have been better. He's just becoming tedious and bloviating. I personally think he should try to do a series, just completely change things up. That said I'm not a hater, even his movies I don't like much have 5/5 moments or characters, and I think OUATIH is his best since the Kill Bill films.
I only saw Death Proof when it was in the theatres by itself, after they reckoned the dang kids just didn't understand what a grindhouse was. So the version I saw did feel half an hour too long for the content, but I still kinda loved it. The soundtrack and what it's about are more the Tarantino I can get along with. Need to watch it again. Actually, films set in the distant past have rarely done much for me. Maybe they're too busy just recreating the world they're set in (which I admit OUATIH did a great job of to the point that I enjoyed the slow stuff). I've had a better time watching films from the actual time where possible, but some of that is being entertained by the datedness itself. Eg. a somewhat dull and serious film like Topaz is more entertaining now than it would've been at the time for that reason, but being set in the decade it was made in surely captures something of the time that can't be repeated later.
Period films can definitely fail miserably if it comes across like a bunch of actors in costumes with little else changed, but then you have some of the greatest films ever made in that same field.
Hateful Eight is fucking fantastic. Django has really great moments...followed by some pandering bullshit moments.
iirc it’s over half of it that’s great, but yeah it falls off a cliff for me too (although i like the ending)
Yeah 1/2 sounds right, it goes to junk around the mark Tarantino's black cock fetishism starts rearing its head in the form of Sam Jackson's monologue lmao.
Speaking of Tarantino, I recently watched Billy Wilder's 5 Graves to Cairo which he's cited as a favourite, and interestingly it may be the first example of egregious historical revisionism in cinema and no doubt the source of Tarantino's recent tendencies - it's a completely fictional tale of a British soldier stumbling into an Egyptian hotel housing Rommel and his troops and he disguises himself as a servant to ingratiate himself with Rommel and uncover his secret war plans. It's always seen as a lesser Wilder film (which it is) but it does have that natural ease and knack of dialogue which marks most of Wilder's - and Tarantino's - films.
That's another one of those terms that's been so misused over the years it's essentially lost all its original meaning. It's more of a marketing slogan these days. The funny thing with Topaz is that it came out in '69 but only takes place 7 years earlier and critics of the time still thought it was too dull and outdated. This is after Hitchcock specifically wanted to shoot on location for a more contemporary and realistic feel.
