Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 31, 2022 20:25:11 GMT -5
Any rumours about what Tarantino has planned next? A few years ago he was saying that he intended to make only one more movie and then switch to writing, which would be a shame. The one movie he's done since then is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which would be his final film if he sticks to that plan. edit: checked wiki and if they're accurate and up to date, the plan was to make ten films and then stop, in which case he has one more to go.
Yeah, it was my understanding that he has one more to go.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 31, 2022 22:36:34 GMT -5
Any rumours about what Tarantino has planned next? A few years ago he was saying that he intended to make only one more movie and then switch to writing, which would be a shame. The one movie he's done since then is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which would be his final film if he sticks to that plan. edit: checked wiki and if they're accurate and up to date, the plan was to make ten films and then stop, in which case he has one more to go.
Yeah, it was my understanding that he has one more to go.
As a fan, I'll be very sorry if he doesn't keep on making movies. He writes great scripts, but it's the combination of his scripts and direction and general overseeing of his films that makes them special. True Romance was a good movie, but I suspect it might have been a great one if Tarantino had directed as well as written it.
I can understand why he rubs some people the wrong way, though. I don't particularly like him as a person myself, when I hear him talking, apart from his love for the medium - his enthusiasm for movies is the best thing about him. But the work itself is absolutely first rate, to my mind - though, once again, I can see why some viewers might not take to it.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 3, 2022 23:30:19 GMT -5
I managed to catch Children of the Corn last weekend. In my earlier post I wrote:
I used to see this movie sitting on the shelves of the video store that my family rented from when I was a kid. The box art always unnerved me, but for some reason I had a morbid fascination with it. Some of the kids in my neighborhood had seen it and used to talk about it... I got the sense that some of them had issues with their parents and were living vicariously through the characters of the movie. It was one of those movies that, for a time, I heard a lot about but never got around to seeing.
As a kid I was convinced that this would be a creepy movie. After all these years of buildup... what a disappointment. It feels like a made-for-TV horror film from the 80s. And we all know that made-for-TV movies in the 80s means something very different from made-for-TV today, what with streaming and cable raising the bar substantially compared to what could be aired on broadcast TV. About the best thing that I could say about it is that I appreciated that they tried to do the subtle thing by hinting at the violence rather than showing it full on. No doubt this was also done because showing children committing brutal murders with farming tools in graphic detail would not have gone over well.
Apart from this, there is very little that's watchable about the movie. As an entry in the "creepy children" genre of horror films, I did not find any of the kids to be particularly creepy. The preacher kid character has an unsettling air about him at the beginning, but it disappears from the rest movie. I chalk it up to his voice, as he was creepier when he didn't talk. There wasn't a lot of a special effects in this movie, but what was used (mostly near the end) was incredibly cheesy and low-budget looking.
I found the adult male lead's character to be problematic. He had a number of scenes where he rants to the children about their religious devotion to the deity in the cornfield, and it came off to me as a not-so-subtle example of the sophisticated liberal (he was supposed to be a doctor traveling cross country to a job in a big city) lecturing the hillbillies about their backwards ways. Honestly, I found the basis of the whole movie to be rather condescending. I don't particularly identify with rural or agrarian folks (I'm a life long East Coaster, primarily mid-Atlantic and northeast, who lived in or adjacent to cities my entire life), but neither do I appreciate the condescending ways city people and/or Hollywood often treats that part of the American population.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 4, 2022 1:17:53 GMT -5
I managed to catch Children of the Corn last weekend. In my earlier post I wrote:
I used to see this movie sitting on the shelves of the video store that my family rented from when I was a kid. The box art always unnerved me, but for some reason I had a morbid fascination with it. Some of the kids in my neighborhood had seen it and used to talk about it... I got the sense that some of them had issues with their parents and were living vicariously through the characters of the movie. It was one of those movies that, for a time, I heard a lot about but never got around to seeing.
As a kid I was convinced that this would be a creepy movie. After all these years of buildup... what a disappointment. It feels like a made-for-TV horror film from the 80s. And we all know that made-for-TV movies in the 80s means something very different from made-for-TV today, what with streaming and cable raising the bar substantially compared to what could be aired on broadcast TV. About the best thing that I could say about it is that I appreciated that they tried to do the subtle thing by hinting at the violence rather than showing it full on. No doubt this was also done because showing children committing brutal murders with farming tools in graphic detail would not have gone over well.
Apart from this, there is very little that's watchable about the movie. As an entry in the "creepy children" genre of horror films, I did not find any of the kids to be particularly creepy. The preacher kid character has an unsettling air about him at the beginning, but it disappears from the rest movie. I chalk it up to his voice, as he was creepier when he didn't talk. There wasn't a lot of a special effects in this movie, but what was used (mostly near the end) was incredibly cheesy and low-budget looking.
I found the adult male lead's character to be problematic. He had a number of scenes where he rants to the children about their religious devotion to the deity in the cornfield, and it came off to me as a not-so-subtle example of the sophisticated liberal (he was supposed to be a doctor traveling cross country to a job in a big city) lecturing the hillbillies about their backwards ways. Honestly, I found the basis of the whole movie to be rather condescending. I don't particularly identify with rural or agrarian folks (I'm a life long East Coaster, primarily mid-Atlantic and northeast, who lived in or adjacent to cities my entire life), but neither do I appreciate the condescending ways city people and/or Hollywood often treats that part of the American population.
Haven't seen this one either. For some reason it hasn't been on my radar, despite liking horror andbeing the right age to ahve seen it when it first aired.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 4, 2022 22:29:10 GMT -5
I managed to catch Children of the Corn last weekend. In my earlier post I wrote:
I used to see this movie sitting on the shelves of the video store that my family rented from when I was a kid. The box art always unnerved me, but for some reason I had a morbid fascination with it. Some of the kids in my neighborhood had seen it and used to talk about it... I got the sense that some of them had issues with their parents and were living vicariously through the characters of the movie. It was one of those movies that, for a time, I heard a lot about but never got around to seeing.
As a kid I was convinced that this would be a creepy movie. After all these years of buildup... what a disappointment. It feels like a made-for-TV horror film from the 80s. And we all know that made-for-TV movies in the 80s means something very different from made-for-TV today, what with streaming and cable raising the bar substantially compared to what could be aired on broadcast TV. About the best thing that I could say about it is that I appreciated that they tried to do the subtle thing by hinting at the violence rather than showing it full on. No doubt this was also done because showing children committing brutal murders with farming tools in graphic detail would not have gone over well.
Apart from this, there is very little that's watchable about the movie. As an entry in the "creepy children" genre of horror films, I did not find any of the kids to be particularly creepy. The preacher kid character has an unsettling air about him at the beginning, but it disappears from the rest movie. I chalk it up to his voice, as he was creepier when he didn't talk. There wasn't a lot of a special effects in this movie, but what was used (mostly near the end) was incredibly cheesy and low-budget looking.
I found the adult male lead's character to be problematic. He had a number of scenes where he rants to the children about their religious devotion to the deity in the cornfield, and it came off to me as a not-so-subtle example of the sophisticated liberal (he was supposed to be a doctor traveling cross country to a job in a big city) lecturing the hillbillies about their backwards ways. Honestly, I found the basis of the whole movie to be rather condescending. I don't particularly identify with rural or agrarian folks (I'm a life long East Coaster, primarily mid-Atlantic and northeast, who lived in or adjacent to cities my entire life), but neither do I appreciate the condescending ways city people and/or Hollywood often treats that part of the American population.
You want made-for-tv, you have to look at the 70s. They actually gave some of them decent budgets and paid for good writing. ABC, especially had several tv movies, written by people like Richard Matheson, and the horror genre was well represented, with things like Trilogy of Terror, Bad Ronald, and a few others (including Killdozer, depending on your perspective). By the 80s, accountants were running the networks, just as they had taken over the film studios and they were doing things on the cheap, apart from the odd pockets of extravagance, like Aaron Spelling. That's also the decade they went from hiding brand logos to charging to have them displayed within a program.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 12, 2022 11:22:37 GMT -5
Looks like the next movie on my to-see list will be the original Alien. Hope to get to it sometime this weekend or next.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Feb 13, 2022 5:35:57 GMT -5
Since a movie from 2012 doesn't really fall into the 'classic' category yet, and given this thread's title and the fact that it's already been touched upon upthread, this seems like the best place to mention that I finally got around to watching Django Unchained last night. I'm not the biggest fan of Tarantino's oeuvre (and I think he peaked with the excellent Jackie Brown), I wasn't really interested in seeing this when it first came out and became all the rage for a while. Also, I was leery about this one because I have seen Inglorious Basterds and despite it's over-the-top almost comic-booky premise (a team of mainly Jewish commandos killing Nazis behind enemy lines), some entertaining bits and a few stellar performances by its various stars, something about Tarantino's take on revisionist/alternate history presented therein rubbed me the wrong way. However, I ended up really enjoying Django. I liked that it's sort of an homage to the spaghetti Westerns and the Blaxploitation flicks of the 1970s (with wink-and-nod suggestion that Django and Hildi are John Shaft's ancestors), while also not shying away from depicting the brutality of slavery. And Christoph Waltz just stole the show whenever he was on screen.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 27, 2022 19:55:03 GMT -5
I had never seen Taxi Driver until today. Not only that, but I had no idea what it was about, having only ever seen the "you talkin' to me?" sequence.
I'm still not sure what it was about. It is however a film rife for different interpretations!
Was John Hinckley inspired by this movie when he tried to shoot Reagan? I'd suppose so; I recall that he wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
The most surprising thing for me was to see Harvey Keitel in a very un-Harvey Keitel role!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 27, 2022 21:39:08 GMT -5
I had never seen Taxi Driver until today. Not only that, but I had no idea what it was about, having only ever seen the "you talkin' to me?" sequence. I'm still not sure what it was about. It is however a film rife for different interpretations! Was John Hinckley inspired by this movie when he tried to shoot Reagan? I'd suppose so; I recall that he wanted to impress Jodie Foster. The most surprising thing for me was to see Harvey Keitel in a very un-Harvey Keitel role! Hinkley obsessed about Jodi Foster and this film. He actually stalked her well before the assassination attempt on Reagan and even turned up on her doorstep, while she was attending Yale. He went to a play she was in, with the intention of killing her during the performance, but changed his mind during it. He was a seriously sick puppy. What's worse is that she has had to maintain constant high security because of other nutjobs who were inspired by Hinkley. My interpretation is that Travis is a Vietnam vet, who longs to be a hero and/or someone important. He was likely disturbed before Vietnam and his experiences made it worse. He turns his attention to Cybil Sheppard, hoping to impress her, even if he has to kill the political candidate to do it. He also is obsessed with Foster's character and rescuing her, which he eventually does. I didn't see it until years later, but recall seeing the scenes of him working out, developing the fast draw rig, and the whole "You talkin' to me?" bit. Those clips were played endlessly on tv. They actually got him to parody it for Rocky & Bullwinkle, when he played Fearless Leader.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Feb 28, 2022 3:56:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I only watched Taxi Driver for the first time a few years ago as well. And yeah, I agree that there several different ways in which it can be interpreted - and I still haven't landed on which one I think is correct. However, I'm glad I watched it - it's a well-made, thought-provoking film with some top-notch performances by its cast. (It's also kind of a trip that Jodie Foster appeared in it, and then starred in Candleshoe a year later.)
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 3, 2022 12:29:48 GMT -5
I had never seen Taxi Driver until today. Not only that, but I had no idea what it was about, having only ever seen the "you talkin' to me?" sequence. I'm still not sure what it was about. It is however a film rife for different interpretations! Was John Hinckley inspired by this movie when he tried to shoot Reagan? I'd suppose so; I recall that he wanted to impress Jodie Foster. The most surprising thing for me was to see Harvey Keitel in a very un-Harvey Keitel role! Martin Scorcese has spoken (perhaps written) about how much he was influenced by John Ford's The Searchers in general and in making Taxi Driver in particular. Substitute Deniro's Travis Bickel for John Wayne's Ethan Edwards, Harvey Keitel's Sport for Henry Brandon's Scar (notice his feathers), Jodie Foster's Iris for Natalie Wood's Debbie and the world of prositution for the Comanche camps and you're on your way. Of course it goes deeper than these clues that Scorcese is in a sense updatinf]g the 1956 classic. Paul Schrader, the TD screenwriter, is another of directors who point to The Searchers as the movie that influenced them most. Schrader admitted that his film Hardcore is essentially a rewrite of The Searchers with George C. Scott playing a father obsessed with rescuing his daughter from the underworld of pornographic film. Not a pleasant film to watch -- I've only seen it once, and that was close to 40 years ago -- but it is just as intense as you might imagine it to be, given the presences of Schrader and Scott. The Searchers is less graphic visually, but its portrayal of the violence, moral superiority and the ambiguity of heroism is no less obvious than it is in than its cinematic descendants. Spielberg, Lucas, and the testosterone-fueled John Milius also have spoken, written and demonstrated in their films their admiration for The Searchers.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 3, 2022 13:08:19 GMT -5
Keitel is one of my favourite actors. I think he's right up there with Pacino and Deniro, from that generation.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Mar 6, 2022 5:08:43 GMT -5
Finally saw another recentish movie that created a ton of buzz when it came out but which I never managed to see: 2016's Arrival. It's already been discussed by other members on several occasions in the New and Upcoming Movies Discussion thread ( here and here), so I won't go over the main plot points. I'll just say that I liked it quite a bit. I'm a big fan of high-concept SF when done right, and for the most part, I think Arrival was really well done. I didn't even mind the overriding somber tone, and I found the linguistic discussion at the heart of the story fascinating ( I tend to enjoy explorations of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in SF). Perhaps my only criticism would be the relative speed with which the main character, played quite well by Amy Adams, figured out a working vocabulary to kind-of/sort-of converse with the aliens.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 6, 2022 9:56:36 GMT -5
Finally saw another recentish movie that created a ton of buzz when it came out but which I never managed to see: 2016's Arrival. It's already been discussed by other members on several occasions in the New and Upcoming Movies Discussion thread ( here and here), so I won't go over the main plot points. I'll just say that I liked it quite a bit. I'm a big fan of high-concept SF when done right, and for the most part, I think Arrival was really well done. I didn't even mind the overriding somber tone, and I found the linguistic discussion at the heart of the story fascinating ( I tend to enjoy explorations of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in SF). Perhaps my only criticism would be the relative speed with which the main character, played quite well by Amy Adams, figured out a working vocabulary to kind-of/sort-of converse with the aliens. I believe it could have something to do with the nature of the alien language, which modifies the way we think (a bit like Samuel Delany's Babel 17). Maybe when you start using it, it becomes exponentially easier to understand. I want a no-prize!!!
|
|
|
Post by Marv-El on Mar 14, 2022 14:22:50 GMT -5
Looks like the next movie on my to-see list will be the original Alien. Hope to get to it sometime this weekend or next. Even knowing where all the scary bits are in this film, to this day, I still look away from the face-hugger scene with John Hurt and the scene of it's 'birth'.
|
|