Oddly enough, it’s not a new thing though (admittedly the films in that limited genre are all b to Z movies) but now that I hear your perspective, I can appreciate it more. I get the idea that you would enjoy it so much that you would almost want to live vicariously through it. 

That’s your take and it’s fair, but they don’t have to be completely divergent. What I think makes Tarantino good is the blend of arthouse and grindhouse. His films are not your average take on the crime, war and western films by any stretch. Unlike a spandex movie, you don’t see the same beats hit in every film. 

It’s boring and also very “not boring” at the same time (when the scenes ratchet up, holy shit do they ratchet up) but I get what you mean.

I’m on the John Waters side with Salo, in that I think it’s beautiful in a very, very fucking disturbing way. Like all art house films it’s also dull in parts as crazy as that sounds. It’s horrific, but I’d also argue Pasolini makes a lot of great points in it.

I found it to be the most obnoxious part of the Irishman. Whereas you look at Pesci’s performance, which went against what we historically think of as a “Pesci” role and it’s a lot better. I like my Pacino with a little bit of nuance, and in The Irishman that was in limited amount (IMO)

Not really. We’re not talking spandex movies or Rom-Com’s or generic Action films. They are not easily accessible: they tend to be very long and have a wide array of respective viewpoints about them as well.

That’s your take, but personally I think his films are the type where you’re glad you’ve seen them but you wouldn’t see them again.

But he killed it as said plot contrivance...whereas in “The Irishman” he reverted to his yelling persona...

Much in the way John Waters described Salo as an exploitation film made into an art film. What Tarantino is great at is taking his exploitation love of films and filming them as an art film. 

We’ll limit the fire to this asshole’s residence...

That’s, like, your opinion man. But I’d also add you’re in the minority with said opinion. 

I’ll take you out of the grey and add that line about being consistently underrated legit made me laugh. She’s a fucking hack. 

We just need to say “Uncle Billy, do it again!” three times...

Stealing from a poster above me:

Because he’s brilliant at what he does would be the answer. And generally his films are not the equivalent of a fart joke in any sense. Lastly, if you have a deep love for film his references are works of art.

“Many of them are about wars that didn’t involve Nazi’s.” - however, more of them are actually about wars that DID involve Nazi’s. Pretty sure WWII has the most per capita war movie volume of any war. 

Thanks for the heads up. I fully get what you mean about watching a great film but not wanting to revisit it (Salo and Irreversible come to mind) and I’m looking forward to watching it.

That’s a fair point, but I also thought that last years “Widows” was incredible and super well done. That film felt legit as good as any ‘man’ driven crime film (well...maybe not The Godfather but you get what I mean) and that’s a valid point that it humanizes the characters despite doing terrible things. I don’t…

The one negative thing about it (IMO). I hate feet and if I had my way and was dictator for life, I’d force a lot more folks to wear socks.

But it’s also not a masterpiece like Goodfellas either.