Galakordi Urtis Krat

but who cares about forcing messages onto us? that’s not my thesis. I was just saying that reviving the theme of "cinema-as-entertainment" today, when much more than mere entertainment has been extrapolated and conveyed by this art, is anachronistic. and that’s it. I wasn’t saying anything else. god "god".

but who cares about forcing messages onto us? that’s not my thesis. I was just saying that reviving the theme of "cinema-as-entertainment" today, when much more than mere entertainment has been extrapolated and conveyed by this art, is anachronistic. and that’s it. I wasn’t saying anything else. god "god".

excellent

JACKDANIEL'S, it's not a riddle, and I didn't mean to say that cinema shouldn't entertain; on the contrary. I was referring to the birth of cinema, to those short films where comedic situations took place. Cinema was born like this, to entertain. But as it progressed, it branched out into many other directions beyond mere entertainment itself. I don't want to bore anyone, though. These things are already known to everyone.

ALEXANDER77, I get it. I also feel this sensation of the container, and I’m not the type who watches a movie to extract cult characters to worship. Even Pulp Fiction is a container. And it can even be an empty container. But damn, what vibe does it have inside and how cool is that container.

... it no longer makes sense if you attach it to a discourse inscribed in contemporaneity. in today's context. but maybe you were speaking at the end of the 1800s and then I apologize.

NES, "cinema was born to entertain and amuse." This is a statement that makes no sense today.

ALEXANDER77 is his stylistic signature. He was born this way and will die this way. In his early films, he was fresher and more enjoyable (I’m talking about the dialogues). In Death Proof and in the Bastards, he reaches a dimension that invades other spaces and manifests in its heaviness. But paradoxically, his latest films are also his least referential.

or is Tarantino so "Tarantinized" that he can no longer create masterpieces like Pulp Fiction (his masterpiece, I totally agree with Supersoul)? yet, while watching Inglourious Basterds, I missed the fun and pleasure of watching even "just" a Kill Bill.

I saw it last night. There's always so much talk when Tarantino makes a new film, and that's normal. He's a big deal and has directed films that have gone down in history. Personally, I say that Inglorious Basterds is a good film but didn't give me anything. The shooting scenes (all the shooting scenes) are stunning and stylish, and the different camera angles, especially in the first and last chapters, are impressive. The narrative progression is quite clever, and honestly, at times it bored me (burning cinema with films? And all that cinema within cinema? Sure, okay. The answer is "Tarantino." But why so superficial?). Some friends who saw it talked to me about high levels, about a return to the glory of Pulp Fiction. As I always do, I watched the film with a blank slate, without expecting anything, enjoying what the audiovisual product has to offer in the act of viewing. The dialogues are cumbersome, and there's that sense of drawn-out pacing that sometimes was present in Death Proof, when it seemed like the characters were speaking just because it was the only thing they were meant to do. At certain moments, I thought, "Damn, what a soulless film." But let's not dwell on this because I already know I'll get a thousand arrows for it. It's just an opinion. I didn't find in Bastardi Senza Gloria a film worthy of Tarantino.