babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » New movies lookin' good

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: New movies lookin' good
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 10 October 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty excited to see Kill Bill. The critics are hot for this movie. They're doing a great sales job.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 October 2003 06:46 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So far, the trailers for "Kill Bill" are convincing me to treat myself well by avoiding another Tarantino wank-fest.

Bleah!


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 October 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suspect brother rasmus may be being a little bit, shall we say, arch here, Zoot.

Both the Salon and New Yorker critics hated it, for what that's worth.

Me, I'll vote with my feet. I loathed Pulp Fiction, enjoyed Jackie Brown, but am not attracted, to put it as mildly as possible, by filmmakers banging on about how "ironic" their blood-spattered movies are. (In fairness, I don't know that Tarantino actually says this; but we're certainly meant to feel superior to some of the luckless victims in Pulp Fiction, and amused by their variously nasty fates. Advance word leads me to expect much the same in Kill Bill).

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 October 2003 07:10 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Eeesh, I'm a sorry critter today. Totally misread you, rasmus. Tired and a little dull, need a weekend off.

Anyway, I'm not generally a Tarantino fan, but I have to say they did some interesting things with the story structure in "Pulp Fiction". Other than that, too consciously icky-weird. Which most of his films are.

I don't find him remotely ironic, either.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 11 October 2003 03:35 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've only seen "Jackie Brown" by Tarantino but I thought that was quite good. Great acting, interesting story, some violence but it fit with the plot, and of course, the uber-foxy Pam Grier
From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
sleK
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2278

posted 13 October 2003 07:30 PM      Profile for sleK   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ahhh... saw Kill Bill last night. Loved it.

It's deliberately unoriginal. It's marketing at its finest - elevated to the realm of art by nature of its execution.

It's very well paced - pauses when you need to examine something further - shocks the bejeezus out of you right after you get comfortable with the terror previously portrayed.

There are so many things wrong with this movie that I couldn't help but love it. It's like Ninja Scroll, Iron Monkey and Pulp Fiction all rolled into one candy-coated-in-"cool" feature.

I'll definitely be seeing it again.


From: a chair - in a room - by a door | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
inukjuak
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4425

posted 13 October 2003 10:20 PM      Profile for inukjuak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm looking forward to "Beyond Borders", the new Angelina Jolie movie that's due out, after a long delay, October 24. My daughter has a small, but key, role, and that plus a box of popcorn should make for a great premiere.
From: Lowell, MA | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 14 October 2003 01:04 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
that's cool, inukjuak!

re: Kill Bill. Montykins did a good job of summing up why I don't want to see it. To wit:

quote:
When I say I don't blame the actors, I mean that I don't blame them for not being able to make the words sound right. I do blame them, however, for taking the roles. Vivica A. Fox: do you really think your career is improved by playing a character who helps try to assassinate a pregnant bride, and then dies by getting stabbed through the chest while her four-year-old daughter looks on? When you die, is that the clip you want shown at the Academy Awards?

From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 October 2003 03:16 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I post this article for two reasons. The primary reason is because I agree with its view that Tarantino is probably the most overrated director in history:


"All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head.

Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film."


The other is the apparent anti-semitism that pops up out of left field in the last paragraph. I imagine the writer was trying to shame Hollywoood executives, but it sure didn't come off that way.


http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2003 03:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh my God. That's unbelievable! (The last paragraph of that article, that is.)

I agree with him that Tarantino movies suck and blow simultaneously though. I had a boyfriend who loved them, and got me to watch Resevoir Dogs at a time when he knew I couldn't bear to see any violence or portrayals of death (going through depression at the time). At the point where the police officer is being tortured in the garage with gasoline poured on him after having his ear cut off, I started crying uncontrollably and couldn't stop. I didn't speak to the boyfriend for a day or two afterwards, I was so pissed off at him.

I have watched that movie and Pulp Fiction since then (post-depression) and while I don't have the same terrible reaction, I still really dislike his movies. Wholesale, gratuitous violence for no reason other than wholesale, gratuitous violence. The trailers for Kill Bill seem like more of the same.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 14 October 2003 03:26 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hate everything about Tarantino--from his irritating voice and laugh to his violent, senseless, horrible movies.

I won't be seeing Kill Bill, and if I could, I'd erase from my memory Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. I think they're all asshole movies that do more to offend and terrorize the viewer than inspire original or critical thought, and they're not the least bit enjoyable for all the disgusting violence and gore and total callousness.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with him that Tarantino movies suck and blow simultaneously though. I had a boyfriend who loved them, and got me to watch Resevoir Dogs at a time when he knew I couldn't bear to see any violence or portrayals of death (going through depression at the time).

I went to see Pulp Fiction with my then-girlfriend, back in Victoria. I noticed she was stirring restlessly after about the first half hour, but didn't think anything of it. A minute or so into the dungeon scene, she abruptly got up and walked out of the theatre without a word. After ten minutes or so I guessed she hadn't just gone to the bathroom, or if she had wasn't well, so I went out to look for her. She was sitting in the lobby, placidly reading Monday Magazine.

"What's the matter?" I asked. "Were you freaked out?" No, she wasn't freaked out, she'd simply lost all patience with the thing and marched up to the box office, telling them the movie was rubbish and she wanted her money back. The ticket-seller quietly agreed with her assessment and forked over the cash without argument. And this over an hour into the movie, mind you.

Being an idiot who's never yet walked out of a movie, no matter how bad, I asked if she'd mind if I went back in to watch the last half-hour. No problem, she said, so I did. Later I decided she was right and I shouldn't have bothered. Another two hours, nearly, I'll never get back, not to mention $6.00 -- and that in 1992 dollars.

So this experience, and my viewing of The Lover and Wide Sargasso Sea a year or two later in Vancouver, and a lifetime watching movies which, if they change in any way throughout their length, just get sillier and worse as they reach the end, led me to propound 'lance's Law of Bad Movies: If, after 30 minutes, you've found nothing whatsoever to enjoy about a movie, leave forthwith, 'cos it's not going to get better.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 October 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, some movies are moderately fun to begin with, and then disappoint in the last half hour. Hulk was one of those.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 October 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by 'lance:


"I went to see Pulp Fiction with my then-girlfriend, back in Victoria. I noticed she was stirring restlessly after about the first half hour, but didn't think anything of it. A minute or so into the dungeon scene, she abruptly got up and walked out of the theatre without a word. After ten minutes or so I guessed she hadn't just gone to the bathroom, or if she had wasn't well, so I went out to look for her. She was sitting in the lobby, placidly reading Monday Magazine."


If it weren't for the fact that I was with three other people, I would have walked out too. I hated the movie from the first scene on, with the exception of the 50's cafe and Travolta's heroin ride. As bad and gratuitous as the violence and tone of the movie was, the dialogue was even worse.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 14 October 2003 03:52 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm. The only movie I ever regret not walking out of had Harvey Keitel in it, but it wasn't a Tarantino flic. It was The Piano. What a steaming load that was.
From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh. It was the dialogue that my ex thought was so wonderful about Tarantino movies. He practically BEGGED me to watch Resevoir Dogs with him because he said the dialogue was so intelligent and funny, particularly the scene at the beginning of the movie where they're all debating about whether or not to tip a server.

While I occasionally snorted at a couple of the lines, the movie left me cold, and so did Pulp Fiction.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the other hand, some movies are moderately fun to begin with, and then disappoint in the last half hour. Hulk was one of those.

Oh yeah. I've often found this (though I didn't see Hulk). I've just never known it to work the other way around.

Which isn't to say it doesn't happen. Can anyone think of a movie that starts badly, but ends well?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 14 October 2003 03:59 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film."

I find the complaints about the violence in Tarantino's films to be a bit too much. Methink babblers doth protest too much.

Seems QT has a knack for getting under people's skins. How many people get mowed down in both Matrix films? How much wholesale slaughter is there in lord of the Rings? What makes Tarantino's portrayal of violence "gratuitous" when compared to other Hollywood action fare?

I loved Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (though their self-consciencely hip dialogue doesn't age well) and thought Jackie Brown was a good treatment of someone elses's work. Kill Bill is basically a cartoon: no character development; just a skeleton of a plot covered with the skin of a thousand cinematic reference points. The violence is cartoon-like (hell there's even an anime-style cartoon segment) and so patently silly that it's hard to get disturbed.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 14 October 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can anyone think of a movie that starts badly, but ends well?

Swingers. The first half of the movie made me want to jump through the screen and strangle the actors. The last half was fairly entertaining. Which is high praise from me.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 14 October 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Austin Powers Goldmember. The beginning was just a huge re-hash of all the jokes from the previous two movies. They didn't get into the good, new jokes until the second half.

Not that it was a great, great movie. But it did improve toward the end.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 14 October 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't hate Tarantino, nor do I think he's great. Killing Zoe is my favourite of his flicks; it was the first one I saw. The rest I found sort of dull. In my opinion, Tarantino is a pale imitation of Japan's President of Pulp: Takashe Miike. While the cartoonish, misogynistic ultra-violent Ichi the Killer is probably not to every babbler's taste, it struck me as what Tarantino has been trying to achieve.
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2003 04:27 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What makes Tarantino's portrayal of violence "gratuitous" when compared to other Hollywood action fare?

Aren't you setting the bar a bit low there, black_dog?

But to answer your question, I'm especially bothered by two things about Tarantino's movie violence. The first is that the victims are typically treated as chumps, as marks. Often enough we're supposed to laugh at them, or at least at the situation. (I know that your average Hollywood action-picture hack also brings on dozens of expendable bits of cannon-fodder who are there simply to get slaughtered. But such movies are typically rubbish, too; and even when they aren't, this is hardly a defence of Tarantino's stuff).

I distrust a director who has contempt for his characters, no matter how minor, because I think it hides a certain contempt for the audience. And Tarantino's expressed a certain contempt for some aspects of his medium. He said that the title "Reservoir Dogs" came from his contemptuous mangling of the title "Au Revoir Les Enfants," seeming to suggest that if he couldn't pronounce this title (which is, after all, French), the movie was so much pretentious rubbish. Well, dude, we become what we sneer at, you know?

The other thing that irritates me has less to do with the movies themselves. It's the cloud of hype and critical buzz and what not by which Tarantino and his boosters have tried to convince us that he's not just your average Hollywood action-picture hack, but a true cinematic artiste. Sorry, but all that his ballyhooed "thousand cinematic reference points" tell me is that he knows his film history and is able to throw in bits of it to his heart's content. Just as novels written by writers who know only about novels and other books, and no other aspects of life, aren't generally very interesting, so movies made by people who've been steeped in nothing but film can be (paradoxically) self-enclosed and self-referential and insular, telling us nothing very interesting about character or narrative or new and interesting takes on film language or film technique.

I'll grant a couple of things, though. Tarantino's movies, unlike most of the formulaic fluff churned out in Hollywood, are at least worth getting pissed off about. There's some substance there (even if I have no plans to teset this out in the case of Kill Bill). The other is that Jackie Brown, at least one unmotivated shooting aside, has a lot to recommend it. That's one Tarantino movie I don't regret sitting through.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 14 October 2003 05:03 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But to answer your question, I'm especially bothered by two things about Tarantino's movie violence. The first is that the victims are typically treated as chumps, as marks. Often enough we're supposed to laugh at them, or at least at the situation.

And...? I think Tarantino's movies are interesting in that there's no moral cart blanche for violence: there's a current of "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" in his films (notably Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs). The fact that most of his shady characters end up getting their just desserts has more moral clarity than any other of a thousand other films where the hero canw ade through thyousands of dead bad guys, but is free of any mresponisbility for his actions, simply by virtue of being the designated good guy.

quote:
I distrust a director who has contempt for his characters, no matter how minor, because I think it hides a certain contempt for the audience. And Tarantino's expressed a certain contempt for some aspects of his medium. He said that the title "Reservoir Dogs" came from his contemptuous mangling of the title "Au Revoir Les Enfants," seeming to suggest that if he couldn't pronounce this title (which is, after all, French), the movie was so much pretentious rubbish. Well, dude, we become what we sneer at, you know?

I disagree. I think he challenges the audience by creating movies that don't conform to the well-tailored genres of Hollywood, while the stream of self-referential gags and shameless cinematic references shows he expects the audience to a) be paying attention and b) know their films. As for the quote about "Au Revoir Les Enfants" I read it as a homage, as he was heavily influenced by French New Wave filmmakers (especially Trouffaut and Goddard).

quote:
The other thing that irritates me has less to do with the movies themselves. It's the cloud of hype and critical buzz and what not by which Tarantino and his boosters have tried to convince us that he's not just your average Hollywood action-picture hack, but a true cinematic artiste. Sorry, but all that his ballyhooed "thousand cinematic reference points" tell me is that he knows his film history and is able to throw in bits of it to his heart's content. Just as novels written by writers who know only about novels and other books, and no other aspects of life, aren't generally very interesting, so movies made by people who've been steeped in nothing but film can be (paradoxically) self-enclosed and self-referential and insular, telling us nothing very interesting about character or narrative or new and interesting takes on film language or film technique.

I dunno about that last bit. His mucking about with the chronology of Pulp Fiction was groundbreaking and there's some great stuff in Kill Bill (there's a killer long but subtle tracking shot in the tea house scene). My favorite description of Tarantino is that of a film DJ: sampling and mixing elements to create something, while not 100 per cent original, is still larger than thE sum of its parts. That said, it doeasn't always work. Personally I don't harbor any illussions about the man being a artiste, as you say,as action pix go, I'll take QT over bay, Bruckheimer or any other formulaic drivel out there.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2003 05:45 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The fact that most of his shady characters end up getting their just desserts has more moral clarity than any other of a thousand other films where the hero canw ade through thyousands of dead bad guys, but is free of any mresponisbility for his actions, simply by virtue of being the designated good guy.

But in the examples I'm thinking of, it isn't shady characters getting their just desserts. (Which, in any case, is a typical occurrence in formulaic Hollywood movies since the silent days). It's minor characters, relatively harmless and certainly no more shady than the "heroes," who get greased for no particular reason. There's the small-time drug dealer who gets blown away by accident in the back of Travolta's car in Pulp Fiction, setting up a farcical set-piece which among other things allows Tarantino himself, in a cameo role, to demonstrate how transgressive he is by using the word "nigger" about twenty-five times in the course of a ninety-second rant. An extremely graphic death I can live with (this one, incidentally, would have been more so, except that Tarantino agreed under pressure from the MPAA to spare us a full-on -- you should pardon the expression -- shot of buddy taking a round in the face, with the consequences we know). But this is a death with no meaning whatsoever, though I suppose it sets up Harvey Keitel's appearance, and helps to convince us of what dolts these hired killers are. In that, though, it's dramatically unnecessary.

Or there's the stoner girl (Bridget Fonda) in Jackie Brown, who Robert De Niro's character shoots in the ass. It's just in a fit of pique, as I recall, and what happens to her afterward I don't recall, and I'm not sure if the movie doesn't completely ignore her fate.

quote:
I think he challenges the audience by creating movies that don't conform to the well-tailored genres of Hollywood, while the stream of self-referential gags and shameless cinematic references shows he expects the audience to a) be paying attention and b) know their films. As for the quote about "Au Revoir Les Enfants" I read it as a homage, as he was heavily influenced by French New Wave filmmakers (especially Trouffaut and Goddard).

I dunno, maybe it's just a visceral thing, but I've never felt he thought so highly about his audience as all that. I also think that "challenging" an audience, in some cases, amounts to trying to divide it into two groups -- those in the know, and those unfortunates who don't get it, and are therefore rubes. As for homage, I wonder if that isn't something of a dead end, artistically.

quote:
His mucking about with the chronology of Pulp Fiction was groundbreaking ...

Definitely clever, and undoubtedly groundbreaking by Hollywood standards. But had this or something like it been done by other filmmakers before? I don't know independent and "art" movies well enough to judge, but somehow I suspect so.

That's unfair of me, of course, but I'm not inclined to be fair to him. And for a very good reason. His films just... really... bug me, y'know?

Which is an extremely grudging way of admitting that, unlike say George Lucas (to pick a name not at all at random, but someone else who's not going to see any more of my money either, and in this case hasn't since 1981), he's got something. It's just not something I'm planning to encourage in even the tiniest way, i.e. by going to any more of his movies, which I'd also find a waste of time.

(And yes, it's occurred to me that I may well have spent just about as much time explaining why I dislike his movies as I would at a screening of Kill Bill... Well, that's show biz).

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 14 October 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't think he shot her in the ass, 'lance, I thought he just shot her dead.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure you're right, it's been a while since I saw it. Maybe I just remember it that way because it seemed (particularly) contemptuous.

Edit:

Bridget Fonda does get just about the best line in that movie, though. Jackson says to her, "Girl, you spend all your time gettin' high and watchin' TV, you're gonna lose your ambition." To which she replies, "What if my ambition is to get high and watch TV?"

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 14 October 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or there's the stoner girl (Bridget Fonda) in Jackie Brown, who Robert De Niro's character shoots in the ass. It's just in a fit of pique, as I recall, and what happens to her afterward I don't recall, and I'm not sure if the movie doesn't completely ignore her fate.

Keep in mind, though: Jackie Brown wasn't written by Tarantino and his touch on that film was (by his standards anyway) light.

quote:
. I also think that "challenging" an audience, in some cases, amounts to trying to divide it into two groups -- those in the know, and those unfortunates who don't get it, and are therefore rubes.

Isn't that the case with most film, though? I think a movie has to come down on one side of that line or the other. "Hulk" is an example of a film that tried to balance the commercial and the creative and failed in both.

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. (I should rent jackie Brown this weekend, though).


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 14 October 2003 07:18 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Keep in mind, though: Jackie Brown wasn't written by Tarantino and his touch on that film was (by his standards anyway) light.

You're right, of course. Still, a director has a lot of control over how something is acted and shot and edited, and therefore the effect it has when finished. Two directors could start with identical material and yet end up with very different films.

quote:
"Hulk" is an example of a film that tried to balance the commercial and the creative and failed in both.

So I heard. But I don't think there's a line, necessarily, between the "commercial" and the "creative." Sure, with some movies it's easy to categorize. But on which side would you place The Big Sleep, say, or The Godfather (before Jaws and other summer blockbusters, the highest-grossing movie of all time), or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?

quote:
I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. (I should rent jackie Brown this weekend, though).

Yes to both, and I'd be interested in your further thoughts about that. (It's based on an Ellmore Leonard book, right? I keep meaning to read him and keep failing to get around to it).

(Edited to add:

Hey rasmus, you provocateur! Didja mean to start a big ol' argument? If so, well done!)

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 October 2003 11:41 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And here's the indispensable Keith Knight on Tarantino.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2003 02:02 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess this would be the wrong place to try and start a John Woo appreciation society then...
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 October 2003 02:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Actually I've never seen a John Woo movie. My old roommate had lots on videocassette, but when I was around I usually wasn't in the mood.

He regaled me with the story of the time he managed to convince his girlfriend's family he was psychotic. They invited him over for a movie night, and suggested he bring something along to watch. He brought one of the gorier Woo pictures, which they watched in stunned and uncomfortable silence.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2003 02:48 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you are into magazine after magazine of non-stop, fully automatic catharsis, then John Woo's your boy. He definitely is a master of the "ballet of mindless violence"... which brings up a troubling point - most of the ballets I've ever seen were basically ballets of mindless violence too.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 October 2003 02:57 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Really? Was the Nutcracker that bad?
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 October 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha! Yes, and then there's opera, which often as not involves stabbings, suicides, and such-like (and which is not noted for a lot of intellectual content). Or Shakespeare, or... I suppose my distaste for some (I repeat, some) forms of "cartoonish" movie violence is really just (you should pardon the expression) visceral.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 15 October 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The only non-Hollywood (read "pure") John Woo flik I've seen is The Killer. There wasn't much violence as I recall, nor any "ballet", but more ammo was expended in thae movie alone than in any five other movies I can recall (including The Wild Bunch and anything featuring Sylvester Schwazewillis. I found it profoundly yawn-inducing. I'd say Desperado had the purtiest ballets of mindless violence that I can recall.
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 October 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Woo likes to use motorcycles in roughly the same way that Busby Berkley liked to use showgirls, hence the "ballet". He actually started as a choreographer, wanted to direct musicals, but life dealt him a different hand..

I yawned all the way through Desperado, mostly John Woo rehash as far as I was concerned, without the hilariously overwrought homoerotic subtext. I really enjoy Woo's ludicrous twinning/buddying of his protagonist and antagonist - Face Off was his outrageous ridiculous masterpiece on this particular theme, but the Killer had the bad guy and good guy affectionaltely calling each other Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck - a real scream.

He's got something new coming out, I can't recall what. I just saw the trailer last week...


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
rob.leblanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2475

posted 15 October 2003 05:53 PM      Profile for rob.leblanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not really a Tarintino fan. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and one of tthe other films he's done that have meaningless conversation but have some funny point to it. It may have been Jackie Brown I don't know...

I'm going to go see Kill Bill. Mainly to see what Japanese techniques he may have picked up during his long stay in Japan. I usually let the hype die down for about a week or so before I see it.

On an odd side note, the schoolgirl with the spikey ball is from the hit Japanese film Battle Royale. Not that it means anything, but it's a decent film to check out.

Speaking of hype.....how come I haven't heard to much about the Dukes of Hazzard film starting up? Come on, with Britney Spears as Daisy Duke, you CAN'T go wrong


From: Where am I? Where are YOU? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Madame X
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4531

posted 15 October 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for Madame X     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
has anyone seen mystic river? Is it worth the money?
From: here or there or eveeeery where | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 15 October 2003 06:31 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On an odd side note, the schoolgirl with the spikey ball is from the hit Japanese film Battle Royale. Not that it means anything, but it's a decent film to check out.

S'funny: i saw Battle Royale (entertaining yet incomprehensible) the day before I checked out Kill Bill and never thought of that connection. I don't quite remember the spiked ball thing in BR though. Just thought the schoolgirl was a reference to the weird anime obsession with the schoolgirl look.

To get off the Trantino tip for a second, also saw the new Coen Bros "Intolerable Cruelty". Shoulda been called "Major-League Letdown." Definitely the limpest of all the Coen bros joints. Very dissapointing.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 October 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does anyone else besides me have a weakness for Jackie Chan movies?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 15 October 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yo.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
rob.leblanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2475

posted 15 October 2003 07:02 PM      Profile for rob.leblanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
S'funny: i saw Battle Royale (entertaining yet incomprehensible) the day before I checked out Kill Bill and never thought of that connection. I don't quite remember the spiked ball thing in BR though. Just thought the schoolgirl was a reference to the weird anime obsession with the schoolgirl look.

There was no spiked ball thing in BR. Only in Kill Bill (from what I know. I only saw the trailer). I just remember that the actress that plays her was also in Battle Royale as the girl who enjoyed jogging. Personally, I enjoyed the book so much more.


From: Where am I? Where are YOU? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 16 October 2003 09:18 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Swingers

quote:
I don't want you to be the guy in the PG-13 movie everyone's *really* hoping makes it happen. I want you to be like the guy in the rated R movie, you know, the guy you're not sure whether or not you like yet. You're not sure where he's coming from. Okay? You're a bad man. You're a bad man. You're a bad man, bad man.

tarantino: pulp fiction was 1994 ... why the hype for someone who's so unproductive that does one film in nearly 10 years, then comes back with something that he can't have the discipline to edit down into one film?

in terms of upcoming films, young adam looks good.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 16 October 2003 10:34 AM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting comments...

I hate violence in film too, and I didn't like Resevoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction after I walked out of the theatre. I later changed my mind about them. I also liked Jackie Brown.

The love-him-or-hate-him reaction to QT has something to do with this question from above:

quote:
What makes Tarantino's portrayal of violence "gratuitous" when compared to other Hollywood action fare?

IMO The reason why some of us hate him so much is that he does a really good job of building characters that are believable, then often blows them away - sometimes for no reason at all.

It's nihilstic and depressing.

I saw KILL BILL by the way, and he's dropped any of the good stuff (careful direction, character building) from the earlier films and left the cartoony violence only. Thumbs DOWN.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 October 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Writer - filmography
(In Production) (2000s) (1990s) (1980s)

Inglorious Bastards (2005) (announced)
Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004) (completed)
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) (character) (as Q) (written by)
Jackie Brown (1997) (written by)
Curdled (1996) (news report)
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Four Rooms (1995) (written by) (segment "The Man From Hollywood")
Pulp Fiction (1994) (screenplay) (stories)
Natural Born Killers (1994) (story)
True Romance (1993) (written by)
Reservoir Dogs (1992) (written by)
My Best Friend's Birthday (1987)


He's done stuff since Pulp Fiction, just nothing that was as popular. Not that I'm a huge Tarantino fan, but I did enjoy the Mr. Pink tirades in Reservoir Dogs. He does have a fairly large screenplay list on his resume, even if most of them more-or-less pander to his original Reservoir Dogs audience. Curious that he hadn't written anything between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill. He must have been too busy producing such memorable films as From Dusk to Dawn 2 and 3.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 17 October 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know which reviewer actually said:

quote:
"My favorite moment of Kill Bill did not occur until the very end. It was just as the credits began to roll, when the gentleman in front of me hurled a large cup of Pepsi at the screen and shouted, 'That movie ate a dick sandwich with a side of balls! Fucking fuck you, Tarantino!'

But a friend sent it to me and it is quoted at tremble.com

Too bad about the racist quotation there. (No, it actually isn't funny, Todd.)


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 17 October 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey y'all, speaking of Easterbrook's Kill Bill review-cum-anti-Semetic tirade, the goof apologized...er...sort of.

quote:
Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure?
.........................
But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun?

Think of the children!

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 18 October 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And apparently Easterbrook has been fired from ESPN over this.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 18 October 2003 06:09 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So was he felled by the forces of PC or did he just piss-off his (Jewish) boss?

The only movie I ever walked out of was Wild at Heart (Cage and Dern). Then, years later, I ran across it while suffering jet lag in a hotel room in Bangkok late at night. I liked it. (But then, I liked Blue Velvet and Leaving Las Vegas, too. So maybe my barís pretty low).

I liked both Pulp Fiction (the conversation about rubbing a womanís feet, still makes me laugh) and I liked Reservoir Dogs. I watched RDogs a second time and found it to be much less shocking than the first time.

The moral statement of Pulp Fiction that I took, if one feels requires to find such things in this form of entertainment, was that one assassin quit the business and lived, and one didnít and didnít.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 18 October 2003 06:45 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Assassins take note.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 26 October 2003 01:12 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw Kill Bill and, in the same day, agreed with Leah Maclaren about it. God, that hurts.

Here's my problem. I was ready to accept it as a B-movie, which I think it is. I was ready to accept it as a movie with a threadbare story and empty characters. I was ready to forgive the regrettable and much lamented miscue involving a young child witnessing a murder. (Though it is a repeated theme.) I was ready to enjoy candy floss for the mind, a fun action/martial arts movie. My problem with it was it just wasn't very good on that level. Because there was little story, it was hard to be engaged. The quality of the martial arts and fight choreography was actually a huge letdown. It's not so much martial arts or fighting that Tarantino obsesses on as cartoonish amounts of blood. Personally, it's just not that amusing to me.

I did laugh a couple of times at the absurdity of some scenes. But I also don't think Tarantino is ironic. His movie may be dense with references and allusions, but this doesn't mean he's being ironic. I think he just wants to cram cool stuff in. That's what he himself says. I think an audience that either enjoys it on its own terms, but is embarrassed by it, or one that feels obliged to find something to enjoy about it, but can't enjoy it as a straight up action picture -- because it doesn't work very well on the literal level, in fact -- might have an interest in ironizing Tarantino. I just think they would be wrong about it. The right thing is either to enjoy it as mindless, good looking fluff, or to say, actually, the emperor has no clothes.

What was good about it: visually and acoustically, it is superb. As the New York Times reviewer said, it is pure style, no substance.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 26 October 2003 01:51 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

I rented this on video and didn't realize it was a Tarantino film til I read above. The video box gives you no idea what its really about and I was surprised. But now that you mention it, all the blood fits in with his "style".

But I think the bloodiest, goriest movie I ever saw was Blade.

I took my son and his friend to see Scary Movie 3 because it was rated 14A and they couldn't get in without me. It was worth a few laughs despite the gratuitous violence (slapstick) and racial stereotyping (a-la-the-Wayans). You can definitely wait til it comes out on video which is when I'll probably see Kill Bill (a couple more weeks I imagine).


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 12 November 2003 08:42 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kill Bill - more fun than humans should be allowed to have. Loved it to death. Can't wait for Volume 2 in February.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 12 November 2003 09:43 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As an antidote to QT, I'd recommend The Station Agent; it manages to come by its uplifting ending honestly. Imagine that. Exactly the same would apply to Lost In Translation.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 05 February 2004 05:46 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
empire magazine gives best director to tarantino for kill bill

quote:
The film's star Uma Thurman was named best actress as the vengeful Bride.

The awards, voted for by readers of Empire film magazine, were handed out at London's Dorchester hotel.

Neither Johnny Depp or Uma Thurman were able to attend the awards on Wednesday night.

Thurman's award was received by comic Johnny Vegas, dressed fetchingly in The Bride's yellow jumpsuit.


mr. vegas is the one on the right:


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 February 2004 08:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. I'm speechless. Haven't seen it (even though it's been at the little theatre around the corner from me several times) and don't intend to. Tarantino sucks.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2005 11:09 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know this was started as kind of a sarcastic thread, but since I'm not sure how I feel about the movie anyhow, this seemed like a good place for it.

I'm taking the munchkin to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory this afternoon. He's been dying to see it, so I thought it might be a nice treat. And actually, I kind of like Johnny Depp and I also enjoy kids' movies, so I'm hoping it'll be good.

Has anyone seen it yet? Any reviews?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 24 July 2005 11:32 AM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw it a few days ago with my 19 year old sister. I'm not really sure how I feel about it, but I think that's because I've seen the old one so many times. It, well, takes great inspiration from the old one. Visually, it was quite fantastic, and the new takes on the old stereotypes were neat, although the 'kid from Germany' character got my goat, just like in the old movie (and the book? I don't remember).

My sister ended up taking my four-and-a-half year-old brother and he thought it was great, but I have serious doubts as to whether he got it -it was pretty weird. Also, I don't know how old your kid is, but there is a potentially scary scene with dolls catching on fire and melting. Little bro thought that scene was hilarious ( ) though.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2005 11:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He's six. And his other parental unit allows him to watch movies that are probably a little too violent (at least for my liking) so I doubt he'll be too freaked at that.

I've never seen the old movie - in fact, I've never even read the book! I'm thinking that'll probably be a benefit. I usually find myself disappointed in the movie when I read the book first.

Uh oh, German stereotypes, huh? Well, I can probably take it. My German relatives and I are constantly making irreverent German stereotype jokes, so I don't mind so much - I'll probably find it funny.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 24 July 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was kind of going on the assumption that you'd seen the old one, so I guess I might have to explain a little bit of what I said. The 'kid from Germany' character is chubby and won't stop eating. Ever. I don't know what German stereotypes are, but it mostly got my goat because of the 'fat kid' thing... although I do think it was more a comment on gluttony, given the other characters in the book/movie.

Like I said, I don't know whether I liked it, or whether a kid would 'get it', but I think I'm going to give it another go when it's out on video. Johnny Depp as Charlie... it's much better than him as that stupid pirate. Much stranger and much more fun, if you could call it that.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds more like a "fat kid" stereotype than a German one. But I see what you mean. Too bad, really. Most skinny kids I know (including my son) would eat chocolate all day too, if he were allowed! And I certainly wasn't allowed to do so when I was a fat kid.

Well, I can probably counter the stereotyping if my son picks up on it a lot. We're going to go to the 12:50 show, I think. My skinny kid is too busy loafing on the couch watching Ninja Turtles to make the noon one. (Which means it gives mom an extra 15 minutes of babbling time...hee hee.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 24 July 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw Charlie yesterday with my young one

I enjoyed the movie but I was uncomfortable about the Oompa Loompa, Deep Roy's role, a discomfort I never felt when I watched the old movie or when I read the book. I don't think the movie was trying to be a commentary on exploitation, but those O Ls sure looked like they were exploited to the max. Was the book a commentary on exploitation? I don't recall. A lot of Roald Dahls work appears to be satire but I am not a scholar and maybe I am seeing to much in the movie.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 July 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, TH, I can understand your reaction. When I actually thought about it, I wasn't crazy about the "tort reform" theme behind The Incredibles either. It didn't hit me while I was watching it, but reading a couple of reviews afterwards, I thought, oh YEAH, they really have a point, don't they.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca