Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    07 Sep '09 06:54 / 1 edit
    Your thoughts, please, besides Waltz's exquisite performance.
  2. Subscriber Pariah325
    Knife Wielder
    07 Sep '09 14:42
    Liked it. Thought it was pretty darkly comical. When there was violence, it was done as graphically as possible, but the movie wasn't just a constant blood-bath for 2hours and 40 minutes. At one stage early in the movie (let's say the second quarter or so) it moved kind of slowly, but it picked back up after that.
  3. 07 Sep '09 18:40
    Entertainig. Packed a lot into a movie - violence, comedy, suspense. Not a classic but a good ride.
  4. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    07 Sep '09 19:56
    Good insights.

    I have a question: what in your opinion makes it a Tarantino movie and, on the other side, what surprised you?

    I was expecting a blood bath, indeed, though I may say I quite enjoyed the switch into another kind of violence, less graphic and more, well, humorously sadistic.

    What do you think?
  5. Subscriber Pariah325
    Knife Wielder
    08 Sep '09 03:09
    What makes a QT movie? Tragedy. Scenes where nobody comes out alive. Blood, sudden gunshots/violence, cussing, dark humor. Like the scene in the basement (the worst part about fighting in a basement is you're fighting in a basement) where nobody really comes out alive. Sorta like Reservoir Dogs (end scene where nice guy, the old man, Mr. Orange and Mr. Blue all die) and True Romance (scene where all the cops, mobsters, and movie people get killed at the final drug-deal).
  6. Standard member rbmorris
    Vampyroteuthis
    08 Sep '09 14:25
    Originally posted by Seitse
    Good insights.

    I have a question: what in your opinion makes it a Tarantino movie and, on the other side, what surprised you?

    I was expecting a blood bath, indeed, though I may say I quite enjoyed the switch into another kind of violence, less graphic and more, well, humorously sadistic.

    What do you think?
    It wasn't a bloodbath? That's what I was expecting too.
  7. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    08 Sep '09 18:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rbmorris
    It wasn't a bloodbath? That's what I was expecting too.
    I am sure some UCLA film graduate student teamed up with a peer from NYU's cultural studies department and wrote a doctoral dissertation on Tarantino with an empirical chapter containing a comparative blood/minute ratio per movie.

    I have still to find it, though. In the meanwhile, my impression is that this one contained less explicit violence that the previous ones.
  8. Subscriber Pariah325
    Knife Wielder
    08 Sep '09 22:12
    Originally posted by Seitse
    I am sure some UCLA film graduate student teamed up with a peer from NYU's cultural studies department and wrote a doctoral dissertation on Tarantino with an empirical chapter containing a comparative blood/minute ratio per movie.

    I have still to find it, though. In the meanwhile, my impression is that this one contained less explicit violence that the previous ones.
    Oh, don't get me wrong - the violence is there. It's just not like in Reservoir dogs where the guy just bleeds for the entire movie. More like True Romance or Pulp Fiction.