Number 6
Stunt Coordinator
Yes, to all of the above. I may not agree wholeheartedly, but love the good, substantial debate. You've given me something to think about.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Tarantino tells that story himself in the documentary Not Quite Hollywood (either in the doc itself or in one of the special feature interviews).Ejanss said:There's an old story about QT working on Kill Bill that sums up his entire approach to filmmaking:
In the scene where she was in a coma, Uma Thurman reportedly objected to having to play the scene with her eyes open--Has anyone ever seen a coma patient with their eyes open? According to the story, Quentin responded, "But that's how they did it in 'Patrick'!"
Does it not?RobHam said:My wife hates Westerns and the movies of Quentin Tarantino so it was a done deal that I was never going to see this movie in the cinema on first release.
It finally came out this week on BD in the UK, so I got to watch it tonight at home.
Before launching into this, I have all of QT's movies - some I like and some make me cringe. So a passive admirer, but not a huge fan. I also have a huge collection of Westerns on DVD and BD, including a sizeable quantity of "spaghetti westerns".
To be blunt, I thought this was juvenile rubbish with very little saving graces other than the deliberate borrowings from other (better) movies. When I first saw Kill Bill 1, my first thought was that QT should make a Western as so much of it had been borrowed from Leone and Corbucci. The final result of Django Unchained (at times) owes more to Mel Brooks than it does to the genre it tries so poorly to copy.
I was disappointed when Tarantino threw away the script in the final third of Inglourios Basterds, and went all out to please comic loving teenagers of all ages with a staggering lack of respect for his own film. This time, other than a few bravura scenes, I thought it was just a very poor film.
I'll come back to Tarantino once he grows up and makes a film worthy of the talent he does seem to possess - tonight I just regret paying full price for a Blu-ray that I could have waited three months and paid half that for.
Finally , the reason for tagging it onto RAH's review - the BD does look superb
You mean the "theater-girl Jewish-revenge fantasy" that the film BEGINS with?Ejanss said:So, pretty much like "Inglorious Basterds", then after Brad Pitt's tough WWII squad pretty much disappeared after the first half hour of the movie, and he set out to make the theater-girl Jewish-revenge fantasy instead?
The very existence of a Django "franchise" more or less invalidates the "copyrighted intellectual property" argument, as only ONE of the sequels is actually an OFFICIAL sequel.Richard--W said:Come on, Travis. Django is a copyrighted intellectual property. QT is exploiting the name and title for his own self-aggrandizement whether he used the content or not. Using the name and title of the Django franchise is reason enough to acknowledge it, since the franchise is still current in the home video market. It follows then that using the content of the N---er Charley films, which are also a copyrighted intellectual property, should have been acknowledged whether QT used the title or not.
I wouldn't assume that regarding Lucas.