It still 2 o'clock, and time for a break before doing my second travel into the past.
What special treats have we to look forward to in the next six months? I was asked which genres I tend to avoid, which basically boiled down to the rom com. He asked me why - I thought about it for a moment, and the best answer I had was "nobody gets shot". I've always tried to dodge the "fan of violent movies" bullet, but it's getting increasingly hard to deny. See what you think of the films below:
Brothers Bloom
Grifter movie from the creator of Brick! Coming very, very soon.
Public Enemies
Chicago. 30s. Gangsters. Depp. Bale. Mann.
Here endeth the lesson.
Inglorious Basterds
"You haven't seen war til you've seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino," announces the trailer, I've a funny feeling that's exactly what we're going to get. It's not going to be subtle. It's not going to be pleasant. It is going to be guilty good fun, and provoke some serious outrage. Perhaps more than any other of his films. Before seeing the trailer, I argued that his treatment of the subject was excusable because it was no more set in WWII than Kill Bill was in Japan. Both were set in this cinematic netherworld, created from cultural ideas instead of reality. It's not set in the real war, and isn't pretending to be. If this film was being made by a serious director, and intended as a serious piece of war-drama - then you could criticise. Nazis have been cardboard villains for hire ever since 1942, and there's no reason that should stop now.
That was before seeing the trailer, and I think maybe I should reserve judgement till seeing the film. I've commented about Tarantino before that he hasn't continued the elements from Reservoir Dogs which I particularly admired. Same style, same dialogue, same music, but his later films have lacked - well, characters. Which might seem cruel for the creator of The Bride, Mia Wallace and Jules Winnefield, but what they lack is sympathy. You are dispassionate. And you don't care when the various deaths hit in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. It's the distance I was talking about in my realism essay - not sympathy, but proximity. He has never replicated the sense of pace or meaning Reservoir Dogs had; the violence has moved from my type 3 (genuinely realistic "I don't want to watch this") towards my type 1 ("phwoar! Look at that arm go!"), and you simply dot give a damn if the characters make it. At all.
Even though Reservoir Dogs has some strong comedic elements - it can be enjoyed as a black comedy, and some days I do chuckle all the way through - it was rooted in some very solid humanity. I think I speak for everyone in my aquaintance that all of them felt for the characters in one way or another.
The cheerily mis-spelt Inglorious Basterds draws from men-on-a-mission movies, such as the Dirty Dozen and my beloved Guns of Navarone. Excellent buddy drama is the entire point of the genre, so I do hope for some human substance beneath the gleefuly bloodletting. Furthermore, this is his chance to make a real movie - he's liberated from L.A. crooks and a post-modern soundtrack. Time to show us what you can do.
Having read my intelligent, challenging argument - sit back for the not at all intelligent or challenging joy which is the trailer:
Sherlock Holmes
It's hard to see how this can concievably bad. Once you've got a) crime movie with b) a strong buddy partnership set in c) Victorian England, you're already half way there with me. Add in Guy Richie, who must surely do something intriguing to shake up the period drama, and I simply cannot wait. The coke is out, but the violence is back in as Jude Law explains:
"A word that Conan Doyle uses an awful lot is 'apprehended.' As in, 'Holmes and Watson apprehend the villain.' We get to show the apprehension."
Looking at the pictures, I'm fairly sure this is going to involve Moriaty. I'm also pretty sure this journalist didn't know what they were doing when they used the phrase "Downey/Law"...
Frankly, how can somethingthis slashy be bad?
What special treats have we to look forward to in the next six months? I was asked which genres I tend to avoid, which basically boiled down to the rom com. He asked me why - I thought about it for a moment, and the best answer I had was "nobody gets shot". I've always tried to dodge the "fan of violent movies" bullet, but it's getting increasingly hard to deny. See what you think of the films below:
Brothers Bloom
Grifter movie from the creator of Brick! Coming very, very soon.
Public Enemies
Chicago. 30s. Gangsters. Depp. Bale. Mann.
Here endeth the lesson.
Inglorious Basterds
"You haven't seen war til you've seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino," announces the trailer, I've a funny feeling that's exactly what we're going to get. It's not going to be subtle. It's not going to be pleasant. It is going to be guilty good fun, and provoke some serious outrage. Perhaps more than any other of his films. Before seeing the trailer, I argued that his treatment of the subject was excusable because it was no more set in WWII than Kill Bill was in Japan. Both were set in this cinematic netherworld, created from cultural ideas instead of reality. It's not set in the real war, and isn't pretending to be. If this film was being made by a serious director, and intended as a serious piece of war-drama - then you could criticise. Nazis have been cardboard villains for hire ever since 1942, and there's no reason that should stop now.
That was before seeing the trailer, and I think maybe I should reserve judgement till seeing the film. I've commented about Tarantino before that he hasn't continued the elements from Reservoir Dogs which I particularly admired. Same style, same dialogue, same music, but his later films have lacked - well, characters. Which might seem cruel for the creator of The Bride, Mia Wallace and Jules Winnefield, but what they lack is sympathy. You are dispassionate. And you don't care when the various deaths hit in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. It's the distance I was talking about in my realism essay - not sympathy, but proximity. He has never replicated the sense of pace or meaning Reservoir Dogs had; the violence has moved from my type 3 (genuinely realistic "I don't want to watch this") towards my type 1 ("phwoar! Look at that arm go!"), and you simply dot give a damn if the characters make it. At all.
Even though Reservoir Dogs has some strong comedic elements - it can be enjoyed as a black comedy, and some days I do chuckle all the way through - it was rooted in some very solid humanity. I think I speak for everyone in my aquaintance that all of them felt for the characters in one way or another.
The cheerily mis-spelt Inglorious Basterds draws from men-on-a-mission movies, such as the Dirty Dozen and my beloved Guns of Navarone. Excellent buddy drama is the entire point of the genre, so I do hope for some human substance beneath the gleefuly bloodletting. Furthermore, this is his chance to make a real movie - he's liberated from L.A. crooks and a post-modern soundtrack. Time to show us what you can do.
Having read my intelligent, challenging argument - sit back for the not at all intelligent or challenging joy which is the trailer:
Sherlock Holmes
It's hard to see how this can concievably bad. Once you've got a) crime movie with b) a strong buddy partnership set in c) Victorian England, you're already half way there with me. Add in Guy Richie, who must surely do something intriguing to shake up the period drama, and I simply cannot wait. The coke is out, but the violence is back in as Jude Law explains:
"A word that Conan Doyle uses an awful lot is 'apprehended.' As in, 'Holmes and Watson apprehend the villain.' We get to show the apprehension."
Looking at the pictures, I'm fairly sure this is going to involve Moriaty. I'm also pretty sure this journalist didn't know what they were doing when they used the phrase "Downey/Law"...
Frankly, how can something
Comments (0)