Monday, June 09, 2008

From This To That

Recently watched From Dusk Till Dawn all the way through for the first time since I saw it in the theatre. It was even better than I remembered.

The film didn't do that well when first released, and I suppose it's mostly because it changes its story in midstream. My attitude is it's two great films in a row, so what's the problem?

The reason I think I liked it better looking back is the same reason I think I liked Woody Allen's Stardust Memories when I saw it years later. When I first saw SM, compared to his wonderful comedies of the 70s, it was a letdown, but looking back later, compared to his more arty films, it was a lot more enjoyable. I saw FDTD not that long after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and it suffered by comparison, but since then, QT's scripts haven't been quite as good (as far as I'm concerned), while the well-written, but more important, well-plotted style of QT is still very much on display in FDTD. (Director Robert Rodriguez helps, too.)

I also recently watched From Here To Eternity from beginning to end. It won the Best Picture Oscar, but like so many "class" films of the era (often directed by people like Fred Zinneman or Willie Wyler or George Stevens), I find it less interesting than films that just try to be fun.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that it was like two movies. Problem is that the first movie was awesome, while the second movie completely blows ass.

--mikey in mich

2:07 PM, June 12, 2008  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Funny you should say that, since I was just talking to a friend who thinks the second half is the part that works. That's the danger when you have two separate movies in one--even if they're both working, people will pick sides.

10:26 AM, June 13, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter