|
Django wasn't really a Western as much as a Mandingo clone.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
On a side note for the thread, iOS now has TV.app, but the lists of apps that integrate with it is pretty small right now. On the upside, it still means you can get a bunch of shows in one place and just dump the individual channel apps into a 'gently caress why do I even have to have these?' folder on your last home screen. Free stuff: - Crunchyroll - CBS - The CW - CW Seed (I have no idea why this is a separate app from the above, they even just cross-link to each other for show searches) Free but you need a cable provider login for the newest episodes: - ABC - A&E - Comedy Central - Cooking Channel - DIY Network - Food Network - FOX NOW - HGTV - History - NBC - Travel Channel Cable provider login needed for everything or almost everything: - AMC - Animal Planet Go - Discovery Go - FXNOW - Hallmark Channel - ID GO - Lifetime - MTV - SCI GO - TBS - TLC GO - TNT - VH1 Paid or a cable provider login: - Showtime Anytime - Starz Paid only: - HBO Now - Hulu - Showtime - Tribeca Shortlist - MUBI - CuriosityStream Roadie fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Funny Games put me through the wringer. Just a warning. its pretty fun , really
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Hateful Eight is not without positive qualities but it's definitely the weakest thing he's made since Kill Bill (or, if you're one of the many people who likes Kill Bill, his worst since Death Proof). I can agree with that. It was definitely a letdown after Django.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
See, Death Proof is my favorite, and I feel like it's at the very least as good as those first four and a half movies. It's a drat sight tighter, less laboriously expositional take on the same exact themes as Kill Bill. On top of that, the action pay-off is honed by the expertise he built up pulling all that kung fu hustle - so good for him and the picture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
I never thought someone would describe Death Proof as "tight" or "tighter" than another movie, as that movie felt like a huge waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:On that note, what's something to watch that's cynical as hell but also fun. Something that's downright gleeful about the unrepentant horribleness going on. Todd Solondz's Happiness is available on Amazon but not Prime, so it's $3 to rent but it's amazing. Seems to go on and off of Netflix pretty regularly, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I never thought someone would describe Death Proof as "tight" or "tighter" than another movie, as that movie felt like a huge waste of time. Death Proof only really works in Grindhouse. The pacing makes much more sense after you deal with the relentless nature of Planet Terror and the end car sequence is phenomenal. It's also much more in line with actual exploitation films than Robert Rodriguez's revisionist fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
See, Death Proof works better as an "grindhouse" movie or whatever and as just a great film period when it doesn't have to deal with that contrast. The movie is actually not that much closer to what exploitation movies really were, it's just not the experiment in ludicrous, Troma-style anti-rationalism that is Rodriguez's forte. It's a much more renewable work of pop art than either Grindhouse or Planet Terror.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
The Balm posted:Todd Solondz's Happiness is available on Amazon but not Prime, so it's $3 to rent but it's amazing. Seems to go on and off of Netflix pretty regularly, too. It's worth it. I've been lucky enough to see a screening with Todd Solondz, with a Q&A and meet & greet afterwords, very soon after the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is excellent in the movie. Got to ask about the writing process for a project with very taboo and horrible characters, what Hoffman was like, etc. Call Me Charlie posted:Death Proof only really works in Grindhouse. The pacing makes much more sense after you deal with the relentless nature of Planet Terror and the end car sequence is phenomenal. It's also much more in line with actual exploitation films than Robert Rodriguez's revisionist fantasy. I get that argument, but I shouldn't have to watch a 2 hour movie before another movie in order to enjoy it. Taken on it's own merits, Death Proof is a boring movie. The beginning suspense is kinda destroyed with the bait-and-switch twist with the cast, the build up to the show-down is monotonous, the actual "boss battle" climax was anti-climactic. It's also a strange send-up of Grindhouse films, which are based on exploiting some aspect of the film to titillate, like excessive gore, nudity, sexual violence, or something. Tarantino, not one for subtlety, oddly excludes all of the stuff that defines the genre he's working in. Death Proof captures the whole female-revenge story, in a way, but it feels as impotent as the villain, since all they do is beat him up, despite the fact he's brutally murdered many others. The characters are bland, another strange thing for Tarantino. For positives, the movie does look good, the stunt driving is fun and exciting, but neither of those redeem the failures. All of these may be accidents, or may have been conscious decisions in an attempt to deconstruct what makes a grindhouse flick a grindhouse flick, but it's resulted in a boring, tepid movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure he was dead after that heel-stomp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I'm pretty sure he was dead after that heel-stomp. Fair enough. I forgot that flourish. Doesn't really change my opinion as a whole, but I will give more credit to some of the editing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
To me the whole slow burn is worth it because of how it sets up "I'm okay!" We spend a lot of time with this one group of girls, we think the movie will be about him stalking them, then they all die. Like Janet Leigh's death in Psycho it pulls the rug out from under the audience and creates uncertainty about the next group. So when we spend a lot of time with then, we think something like the same thing is going to happen. Then Zoe pops out of the bushes and everything changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:See, Death Proof works better as an "grindhouse" movie or whatever and as just a great film period when it doesn't have to deal with that contrast. The movie is actually not that much closer to what exploitation movies really were, it's just not the experiment in ludicrous, Troma-style anti-rationalism that is Rodriguez's forte. It's a much more renewable work of pop art than either Grindhouse or Planet Terror. Franchescanado is kind of proving my point but Death Proof works much better in the confines of Grindhouse because it makes you appreciate the downtime. Planet Terror is like a goofy amusement park ride and Death Proof is the real deal. It gives you a chance to recover before hitting you with some of the best car work caught on film. And Kurt Russel plays his role perfectly. Franchescanado posted:I get that argument, but I shouldn't have to watch a 2 hour movie before another movie in order to enjoy it. Taken on it's own merits, Death Proof is a boring movie. The beginning suspense is kinda destroyed with the bait-and-switch twist with the cast, the build up to the show-down is monotonous, the actual "boss battle" climax was anti-climactic. It's also a strange send-up of Grindhouse films, which are based on exploiting some aspect of the film to titillate, like excessive gore, nudity, sexual violence, or something. Tarantino, not one for subtlety, oddly excludes all of the stuff that defines the genre he's working in. Death Proof captures the whole female-revenge story, in a way, but it feels as impotent as the villain, since all they do is beat him up, despite the fact he's brutally murdered many others. The characters are bland, another strange thing for Tarantino. Eh, not really. Most exploitation films are boring in the traditional sense. They're mostly about the tease of those things. That's why trailer reel compilations are so popular because they normally put most of the good stuff in the trailer. (Which is another great thing about Grindhouse. The trailers capture that mood perfectly. None of them would work as a feature but boiled down to 2 minutes, they seem amazing.) (Also isn't the standalone Death Proof an extended cut compared to what was in Grindhouse? That alone is a reason to watch it as it was originally conceived.) Maxwell Lord posted:To me the whole slow burn is worth it because of how it sets up "I'm okay!" That's a good point. Also Stuntman Mike getting shot and trying to deal with the wound before the girls went after him. That eliminates any mystique he may have had and confirms your original impression of him before you saw the first sequence of kills. He's a dork and a loser. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Franchescanado is kind of proving my point but Death Proof works much better in the confines of Grindhouse because it makes you appreciate the downtime. Planet Terror is like a goofy amusement park ride and Death Proof is the real deal. Except it's not. Death Proof is not any more or less like a "real" grindhouse movie than Planet Terror, it's just that Planet Terror (and the trailers of Grindhouse) are overt comedies. There have been plenty of "grindhouse" movies in the Planet Terror vein because grindhouse is not a real genre, it's a pejorative term for an out-dated mode of exhibition and the 'trash cinema' which was marginalized to it. But there is no unifying aesthetic - the breakdown of mediocre garbage to actually well-made 'grindhouse' films is exactly as diverse an aesthetic and tonal spectrum as "legitimate" movies. What Franchescanado finds disappointing is not that he had to watch a Troma film before being able to appreciate Peeping Tom. It's that he bought the deceitful ad copy. He was looking for a crass, flamboyant example of trash cinema, and instead he got a Quentin Tarantino movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
There was some crazy gore in Death Proof. That leg being cut off and flung from the car haunts me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Except it's not. Death Proof is not any more or less like a "real" grindhouse movie than Planet Terror, it's just that Planet Terror (and the trailers of Grindhouse) are overt comedies. There have been plenty of "grindhouse" movies in the Planet Terror vein because grindhouse is not a real genre, it's a pejorative term for an out-dated mode of exhibition and the 'trash cinema' which was marginalized to it. But there is no unifying aesthetic - the breakdown of mediocre garbage to actually well-made 'grindhouse' films is exactly as diverse an aesthetic and tonal spectrum as "legitimate" movies. Don't assume things on my part. You have no idea what opinions I had before and after viewing a movie from almost a decade ago, or it's how it's advertisement affected my view. When I talk about a movie, I'm talking about the contents of the run time, not the ad-play. It's okay for you to like it, dude. I pretty much disagree with all of your opinions, you have ridiculous criticisms and appreciations for movies that I don't care about. Death Proof is a decent idea that's sums don't equal a satisfying conclusion. I think with a filmography as strong as Tarantino's, I'm justified in my displeasure with a boring movie under the guise that it's a fun movie in the vein of a grindhouse flick. It's not a bad movie, but I wanted to challenge why you chose to call it a "tight" film or "tighter than other projects", because it isn't, and you still haven't argued your point. I gave my reasons for why I dislike the movie, and you're going to say that I formed these opinions based on advertisements? Shageletic posted:There was some crazy gore in Death Proof. That leg being cut off and flung from the car haunts me. Yeah, that was pretty great. edit: Is it the foot thing? Does the fact that Tarantino fully embraced the foot fetish for the opening credits, stopping only to concentrate on some asses, sell you? Or is it that he gave himself a scene where he can grope a few girls while playing with his own jukebox? Are you aware that Tarantino has openly stated Death Proof is his weakest film? Is he wrong? Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Except it's not. Death Proof is not any more or less like a "real" grindhouse movie than Planet Terror, it's just that Planet Terror (and the trailers of Grindhouse) are overt comedies. There have been plenty of "grindhouse" movies in the Planet Terror vein because grindhouse is not a real genre, it's a pejorative term for an out-dated mode of exhibition and the 'trash cinema' which was marginalized to it. But there is no unifying aesthetic - the breakdown of mediocre garbage to actually well-made 'grindhouse' films is exactly as diverse an aesthetic and tonal spectrum as "legitimate" movies. I wouldn't call the trailers of Grindhouse comedies. They're pretty on point with something you'd see in a release like 42nd Street Forever. Even though the umbrella of exploitation is massive, there are some unifying aesthetics that they tried to mimicked with Grindhouse like the theater specific stuff before the movie, the damage that comes with a well worn print and the possibility of seeing something that was reedited/retitled (like let's say Quentin Tarantino's Thunder Bolt being renamed Death Proof) or missing a reel. Death Proof isn't a Tarantino movie. It's Tarantino doing a straight exploitation movie. Doesn't matter what the ad copy was. If you don't appreciate actual exploitation movies, you won't appreciate Death Proof. Seeing it all together as Grindhouse, at least for me, made me appreciate it more. Franchescanado posted:Are you aware that Tarantino has openly stated Death Proof is his weakest film? Is he wrong? Yes. He's an artist and they aren't immune to the critics/lack of commercial success. The fact he wanted to do an 'old-school Kung Fu movie in Mandarin with subtitles in some countries, and release a shorter, dubbed cut in others' as one half of the follow up shows you the mindset he was in before it didn't do good business. It wasn't 'let me make a tarantino movie in this certain genre i like (like kill bill or inglorious bastards or django)', it was 'let me make one of these movies I enjoy and miss (and fingers crossed that people will enjoy it for what it is)' Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Don't assume things on my part. You have no idea what opinions I had before and after viewing a movie from almost a decade ago, or it's how it's advertisement affected my view. When I talk about a movie, I'm talking about the contents of the run time, not the ad-play. I am merely referring to things you have written about the film, which could not possibly be extrapolated from the film itself. quote:The beginning suspense is kinda destroyed with the bait-and-switch twist with the cast, the build up to the show-down is monotonous, the actual "boss battle" climax was anti-climactic. It's also a strange send-up of Grindhouse films, which are based on exploiting some aspect of the film to titillate, like excessive gore, nudity, sexual violence, or something. Tarantino, not one for subtlety, oddly excludes all of the stuff that defines the genre he's working in. Death Proof captures the whole female-revenge story, in a way, but it feels as impotent as the villain, since all they do is beat him up, despite the fact he's brutally murdered many others. The characters are bland, another strange thing for Tarantino. Your critical lens is flawed because you are already discussing film genre (grindhouse films) when what that term actually refers to is the culture of distribution and exhibition during a particular period, not to the superficial content or aesthetic qualities of the films themselves. There is no grindhouse aesthetic, and Tarantino is not sending it up. He is merely using the superficial nomenclature he picked up as a cinephile and drawing upon the films he frequented in his youth, all of which has already more than informed every significant film he had made up until that point. Grindhouse is not referring to a genre, it's presenting both Planet Terror and Death Proof as the thesis statements of two auteur 'indie' filmmakers who came to prominence during a period where their taste for aestheticized violence and self-conscious showbiz chicanery were in fashion. As for what is good about the film, right off the bat I don't understand your basic criticism. How is the beginning suspense destroyed by the bait-and-switch? And, yes, Tarantino has bad taste in movies, shocker. Call Me Charlie posted:I wouldn't call the trailers of Grindhouse comedies. They're pretty on point with something you'd see in a release like 42nd Street Forever. There are plenty of comedies featured in 42nd Street Forever. Many of the horror films, in fact - and several of the trailers on their own - function as comedies. 42nd Street Forever is also, again, a reference to a mode of exhibition and film-goer culture, not to film genre. Film aging and degrading is not a generic feature - it's a consequence of shady distribution and poor preservation. This is not a reference to genre, but, again, to mode of exhibition. It is an illusion in reference to the fact that low budget film distributors could only afford a single print, which they then 'road-showed' from dive-to-dive. As far as 'the real,' the reality is much less grand. Most of what we describe as exploitation films were not 'jumpy' and did not shake you out of the spectacle because of missing reels. Rather, the films themselves were hastily shot and edited, sometimes with virtually non-existent sound-mixing. That is a matter of aesthetics, but which is not replicated by Tarantino or Rodriguez, who actually have the money and time to 'get it right.' The former stuff, all the jive about alternate titles and missing reels, is ad copy. The way in which Tarantino and Rodriguez hued closest to any kind of grindhouse "genre" was through advertisement - blatantly deceiving the spectator that they were getting something more than they could get from any other crass, mainstream release. It is the apotheosis of Rodriguez's "10 minute film school" becoming taken over by, "So here's where we used CGI to fix stuff we didn't account for in production."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Yes. He's an artist and they aren't immune to the critics/lack of commercial success. The fact he wanted to do an 'old-school Kung Fu movie in Mandarin with subtitles in some countries, and release a shorter, dubbed cut in others' as one half of the follow up shows you the mindset he was in before it didn't do good business. It wasn't 'let me make a tarantino movie in this certain genre i like (like kill bill or inglorious bastards or django)', it was 'let me make one of these movies I enjoy and miss (and fingers crossed that people will enjoy it for what it is)' Aw, come on, that was for K. Waste to argue, not you, Charlie. That pull for him saying it was his weakest was actually from an interview he did after Django, during the fiasco with The Hateful Eight, when he was talking about his 10 Movie In-&-Out. That's the thing, you're right, Death Proof is totally a passion project. But in that, it's like there was a weird mess. Like he said to himself "Switchblade Sisters was written in a week, and only had three drafts, Rape Squad had only two drafts, I should write two drafts in two weeks and that's the movie!" I'm merely trying to guess, but that's what it feels like. It's more indulgent than his other movies, it's not as thematically tight as his other movies, and it misses the mark on what makes Tarantino movies great. Also, I don't think Death Proof is on streaming, and this is a ridiculous derail that's kinda going in a circle down the drain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Tense times if talking about movies in the movie subforum is considered a ridiculous derail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Aw, come on, that was for K. Waste to argue, not you, Charlie. Eh, it's an interesting discussion so I couldn't resist butting in. The grindhouse version of Death Proof was, by his own words, cut to the bone and I can even see K. Waste's point with the extended cut (admittedly, I've never watched it) when you compare it to a sprawling work like Kill Bill. My original point was how it was ridiculous that you can't stream Grindhouse or even buy the VOD. It's DVD/Blu only. So a person like you can't see it in its original form. K. Waste posted:As far as 'the real,' the reality is much less grand. Most of what we describe as exploitation films were not 'jumpy' and did not shake you out of the spectacle because of missing reels. Rather, the films themselves were hastily shot and edited, sometimes with virtually non-existent sound-mixing. That is a matter of aesthetics, but which is not replicated by Tarantino or Rodriguez, who actually have the money and time to 'get it right.' The former stuff, all the jive about alternate titles and missing reels, is ad copy. The way in which Tarantino and Rodriguez hued closest to any kind of grindhouse "genre" was through advertisement - blatantly deceiving the spectator that they were getting something more than they could get from any other crass, mainstream release. It is the apotheosis of Rodriguez's "10 minute film school" becoming taken over by, "So here's where we used CGI to fix stuff we didn't account for in production." There's a number of movies that had more explicit (even hardcore) scenes inserted or original explicit scenes pulled out or were hastily renamed/rereleased. Just recently Joe Spinell's The Undertaker got an actual release instead of the frankenstein release it had under the titles 'Death Merchant' or 'Corpse Vanishes 2'. And that was from the late 80s. http://www.dvdexotica.com/2015/11/joe-spinell-in-his-final-role.html Tarantino exaggerated things like missing frames into missing reels (because he owned a movie with a missing reel) but everything outside of Rodriguez's section of Grindhouse wasn't that big of a fantasy. Which would explain why Rodriguez's segment was viewed more favorably over Tarantino's (because it was the fantasy of grindhouse vs the reality of exploitation) And speaking of the missing reel, seeing how both filmmakers used it is telling. Rodriguez used it to jump a giant sequence for comedic effect in a 'that's so wacky' way. Tarantino used it to jump a lap dance because he thought it would be funny to build to the act and jump over it in a way where the movie misses nothing with it's absence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Grindhouse was a weird but cool little theater experience. I thought death proof was pretty good and the ads were great. Didn't really care for planet terror and thought it was dumb and boring though. I also realized I don't want to spend an entire evening in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's a number of movies that had more explicit (even hardcore) scenes inserted or original explicit scenes pulled out or were hastily renamed/rereleased. Just recently Joe Spinell's The Undertaker got an actual release instead of the frankenstein release it had under the titles 'Death Merchant' or 'Corpse Vanishes 2'. And that was from the late 80s. http://www.dvdexotica.com/2015/11/joe-spinell-in-his-final-role.html As someone who clearly appreciates aspects of both films, you'll be tickled to know that even the extended cut of Death Proof/Thunderbolt features a "missing reel," right after the lap dance scene cut from the theatrical. Functionally, both filmmakers actually used the missing reel in the same way: To create the illusion that there was 'missing' expository information, and as a gag implying a hypothetical 'real film' lost to time and space. When it comes down to it, Rodriguez's film may be like a 'fantasy of grindhouse,' but it is more accurately the reality of a Rodriguez film. Planet Terror is only slightly more abstract than Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City, Machete, etc. The catcher is that Rodriguez is not making a 'fantasy' of exploitation films. Rodriguez is and always has been an exploitation filmmaker, making quick, visibly low budget productions that at least in part cater to high concept and the promise of flamboyant action (whether it's sex or violence). Even his kids movies are super on-the-nose exploitation. Except, again, our popular lexicon prevents us from perceiving this. Conventionally, he's understood as an 'indie director.' But most exploitation films are also independent films; and the overlap between trash cinema and arthouse flicks is actually very significant because foreign and arthouse filmmakers were frequently interested in the exact same 'taboo' subjects as exploitation hucksters, and consequently often would get their best box office through these venues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Can I see Wake in Fright on streaming anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:As someone who clearly appreciates aspects of both films, you'll be tickled to know that even the extended cut of Death Proof/Thunderbolt features a "missing reel," right after the lap dance scene cut from the theatrical. Isn't the jump in Death Proof from the intro of Arlene giving Stuntman Mike a lap dance to the everybody leaving the bar? That isn't nearly as big of a time jump as Planet Terror. And I don't know if I would call Rodriguez an exploitation director. He's a low budget guy for sure but there's no real exploitation elements in El Marachi or Once Upon A Time, Sin City's a neo-noir and Machete was made after Planet Terror/Grindhouse (which kinda proves that he doesn't really understand exploitation beyond his weird misinterpretations of what Tarantino shows/tells him) (Also Spy Kids was fairly high budget for a kids movie at the time and contains no exploitation elements but I'm open to hearing your idea as to why it is one) Eli Roth is a much better example of a modern day exploitation director. His whole career's been built off it. A MIRACLE posted:Can I see Wake in Fright on streaming anywhere? It's showing up as available with an add-on subscription on Amazon but it doesn't list what the service is, what the price is or if there's a free trial you can take advantage of. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:It's showing up as available with an add-on subscription on Amazon but it doesn't list what the service is, what the price is or if there's a free trial you can take advantage of. The subscriptions are ConTV and Fandor. That promo code I posted a few pages back should bring it down to $.99 if you can't find any free options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
I gave the Sens8 Christmas Spectacular a whirl. It's a sanctimonious as ever, especially early on with one of the most obvious straw man bigots I've ever seen in film (the homophobic student). The hacktivist and the cop are still the weak links in the cast. The good aspects of the show are still there too: fantastic filming in many vibrant settings, clever explorations of the show's central conceit, and some wit out of parts of the dialog. There are also some well-done brawls with all eight of the sensates throwing down. In short, if you already like the series I don't think you'll be disappointed, but if you didn't like it before you'll want to avoid it at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:Can I see Wake in Fright on streaming anywhere? The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The "What Should I Watch on Streaming?" Megathread: It used to be on Netflix e: I found out just a few weeks ago that the guy who directed that went on to direct Weekend at Bernies
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Isn't the jump in Death Proof from the intro of Arlene giving Stuntman Mike a lap dance to the everybody leaving the bar? That isn't nearly as big of a time jump as Planet Terror. There is no way in Hell that From Dusk Till Dawn is not in form and function an exploitation movie - filled with aesthetically decadent violence and psychosexual overtones, if we're talking strictly about 'exploitable elements,' and all of Rodriguez's crime thrillers are lavishly violent and at the very least what some might call 'sensual.' Sin City being a neo-noir says nothing about whether it has 'exploitable elements' or whatever, nor does Spy Kids failing to have what to you are exploitable elements, even though Rodriguez literally does 3-D and smell-o-vision bullshit. That's straight out of the William Castle playbook. Rodriguez is - factually - closer to the classic exploitation filmmaker than Tarantino ever was or aspired to be. 'Exploitation film' is just a pejorative term invented to distinguish independent genre films from the 'serious' underground and avant-garde. It's just a Madison Avenue crock - a film being low budget, hastily made, and populist in its ambitions may frequently result in it being a piece of poo poo - but that doesn't mean that 'high culture' is somehow less degenerate and frequently mediocre. Grindhouse trades on an atmosphere of nostalgia and black comic irony to sublimate the fact that nothing it depicts is really outside of the wheelhouse of the mainstream, because the system of independent distribution which was the lifeblood of the high period of exploitation movies collapsed. The primary medium moved from cinema to direct-to-video, whereas theaters were then largely re-monopolized, and mainstream theatrical releases continued to push the boundaries of what they could exploit, while simultaneously beholden to no authority except an organization they all funnel money into for positive outcomes anyway. It is in this post-industrial context that Grindhouse finds itself, and where Rodriguez and Tarantino found themselves at that point in their careers. Grindhouse is nothing if not an installation where the theme is 'exploitative elements,' except what does 'exploitative element' mean in a time where so much is treated as simultaneously obscene and stupid, but fundamentally permissible. The answer that the film offers is not in fact that Planet Terror is a fantasy and Death Proof is closer to the real thing. It's that Rodriguez and Tarantino's visions are companions in a cultural experiment, imagining 'exploitative elements' as genre. Hence, 'the missing reel.' The difference in time between the scenes is completely immaterial. The point is that the scenes are "missing," but no editing has occurred. You need to read Grindhouse as an underrated example of the found footage genre, where an invisible third party communicates through the superficial features and trailers to impart to you some 'truth.' The scenes are not missing because Rodriguez and Tarantino cut them out. They are missing because the unseen managers of the installation don't want you to see them, and this functions as characterization and critique. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:From Duck Till Dawn The Ducktales reboot is taking a really strange direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Bro, they already had a vampire plotline
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
precision posted:The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The "What Should I Watch on Streaming?" Megathread: It used to be on Netflix Wow, and the first Rambo movie.. Movie trivia is fun
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Real Life, which is currently streaming on US Netflix, will disappear January 1st. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it, especially if you like Albert Brooks at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Funny Games put me through the wringer. Just a warning. Saw it in a theater when it came out. Half the fun was watching the audience get progressively more and more pissed off as the movie went on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
A popular meme is a variation on "You'll never want to/you don't need to watch Funny Games more than once, ever" and I disagree so hard, I think it's delightful. Not even kidding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Yeah, the only proper way to watch either Funny Games is to full stop reject the premise that it represents some reservoir of depravity that you should feel bad about. Like, compared to Dial "M" for Murder, it's veritably quaint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Yeah, the only proper way to watch either Funny Games is to full stop reject the premise that it represents some reservoir of depravity that you should feel bad about. Like, compared to Dial "M" for Murder, it's veritably quaint. I feel like you could replace "Funny Games" with Kids or Bully in this discussion, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
precision posted:I feel like you could replace "Funny Games" with Kids or Bully in this discussion, too. You absolutely could. The same way that Funny Games employs breaking the fourth wall and the remote control, Bully employs "Forgot About Dre." Superficially, the message is how 'the media destroys family values' - but both films are far more about the absence of positive social influence rather than the mere presence of obscenity. Like, Haneke clearly doesn't think violence in movies is bad, in the same way that Larry Clark authentically loves gangsta rap - just like their respective protagonists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
You know, you've got a real Armond White thing going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:00
|
|