xxStrangerxx

xxStrangerxx t1_jdy3pie wrote

I want to see Tarantino's first choices in place, like Matt Dillon as Butch and Sid Haig as Marsellus and Warren Beatty as Bill and Will Smith as Django. I can sort of understand Dillon not making the effort because Tarantino wasn't Tarantino at the time, and because Tarantino wasn't Tarantino the guy playing agent for Haig never ever bothered him for a role where he'd be, well, you know.

I like to think of the Tarantino films that might have been

1

xxStrangerxx t1_j6cpdxj wrote

Even when it comes to satire, I try not to make assumptions on any value judgements that may or may not have been made by any film. I like avoiding that socio-political commentary layer of reading movies, unless it's to empathize (but not on any moral level per se). I much prefer keeping my thoughts confined to a diegetic level, where it's not that Tyler's the worst person because he's a foodie -- he commits foul after foul and it pissed off the wrong person. I can understand that sort of dynamic and see where both sides are coming from. Tyler's super enthusiastic, Slowik is super over it

Because when we use the term "worst person" can we really say it was the foodie? With those incriminating fajitas?

1

xxStrangerxx t1_j2bqhcp wrote

You can probably add STIR OF ECHOES to that list, although it's not as good as those two. And CRIMSON PEAK

THE SIXTH SENSE is such a good movie because it's about family dysfunction and being unable to communicate. So when mom and son finally are able to share, it's just this huge release of tension. Then the kicker makes it all the more sweet

3

xxStrangerxx t1_j2aycp4 wrote

Sure, of course

There are a few films I already consider lowkey Bond films, like TENET and even HAYWIRE and THE ROCK. Clearly KINGSMAN and MAN FROM UNCLE are cut from Bond's suits

I like the meta approach to films these days, because somewhere along the line audiences forgot that movies are movies and not real life

7

xxStrangerxx t1_j29uz41 wrote

It used to mean a movie that didn't do well at the box office and critically bombed, but grew on the secondary market. Usually a classic indicates 20-30 years has passed and the film remains relevant; being "cult" often shortens that duration because the level of fandom is more intense albeit still in minority numbers. THE BIG LEBOWSKI and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW are examples of cult classics. Cult classics usually provoke costume parties and revivals

16

xxStrangerxx t1_j29tkff wrote

You'll be fine. What IMAX really means is that the screen is going to be big, and as long as the screen is big that's great. You can always sit closer if the screen isn't big

Laser indicates more resolution but the difference isn't worth twice the travel time

−3

xxStrangerxx t1_j260k8g wrote

It's more a case of the box office becoming less and less a factor in determining a movie's "legs"

A cult film is something that didn't get a lot of traction at the box office and later did, via the secondary viewership audience. Which was the only way we could track a movie's popularity. Now that streaming has taken over, that's all changed. No one's rushing to see movies when they can take their sweet time, and these same people will often refuse to see a movie if they feel they're being pressured

3

xxStrangerxx t1_itm4jdn wrote

I like to lob a Denis Villeneuve film for these kinds of questions, particularly ENEMY

Movies to go in blind?

You want gonzo? FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

You want delightful and refreshing? STRANGER THAN FICTION

You want a whole lot of fun? KUNG FU HUSTLE

You want spiritual? SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER ... AND SPRING AGAIN

You want to never watch movies the same again? EL TOPO

You want Henry Fonda? ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST

1