Aug. 30, 2000, 4:56 a.m. CST
cool!!! cant wait for the world war 2 flick.
Aug. 30, 2000, 4:59 a.m. CST
by Mad Dog
I really would love to be at that film fest maybe next year. And can I just say the first person below to insult Tarantino becomes me bitch. I'm impressed he's making films for actresses out there, many saying theres not enough strong female roles available and Tarantino brings Jackie Brown, this next film with Uma and then maybe a film for Bridgit Finda. I think thats excellant and I can't wait to see how they turn out.
Aug. 30, 2000, 5 a.m. CST
by Scum Punch
Yes, Harry, ripping off people isn't as easy as it looks. But Tarantino IS overated. He has only made two really great films, but people talk about him like he's da shit -- already people are using phrases like Tarantino-esque when they should be saying Scorcese-esque or Schrader-esque or Mamet-esque. He is a good director, but media hype was giving him a Spielberg-type status he hadn't earned yet.
Aug. 30, 2000, 5:01 a.m. CST
by Mad Dog
Sorry I mean Fonda, typing so fast trying to get first spot and then I spell her name wrong plus get beaten to the line. arse.
Aug. 30, 2000, 5:05 a.m. CST
by Mad Dog
Remeber Scorsese is a film historian and also builds on what he learns from others, often ofcourse being the maestro he is exceeding any foundations his work may have begun from. I see tarantino holding the position for the 90's that Scorsese had in the 70's except Tarantino's more a maverick and don't have a posse of filmmakers breaking through at the same time.
Aug. 30, 2000, 5:39 a.m. CST
Wow a Sandler-Tarantino film will be completely off the charts, say what you all will but i'll be first in line for that sucka. Guaranatee it ought to be some sweet ass entertainment. Can't wait to see what Killa QT has up his sleeve...DropKick splitting like pants.... ps...Uma and/or Bridget ...maybe the title will be called "Yum: The Movie"
Aug. 30, 2000, 5:57 a.m. CST
by Meat Takeshi
All art is theft, theft from other art, theft from life. There are only supposed to be seven basic plots anyway and pretty much all movies can fit into that model.
Aug. 30, 2000, 6:50 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Exactly which of the 7 basic plots does Being John Malkovich fit into? *** Before all the Tarantino-bashers come out of the woodwork, I'd like them to point out how a pop culture-robbing hack was able to produce the sad and poignant ending of Jackie Brown (the look on Robert Forster's face is priceless).
Aug. 30, 2000, 6:50 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Exactly which of the 7 basic plots does Being John Malkovich fit into? *** Before all the Tarantino-bashers come out of the woodwork, I'd like them to point out how a pop culture-robbing hack was able to produce the sad and poignant ending of Jackie Brown (the look on Robert Forster's face is priceless).
Aug. 30, 2000, 6:52 a.m. CST
I agree what someone said about Scorsese being a film historian. But look at Scorsese's biography. He and Coppola were in the business a few years before Lucas/Spielberg/Milius etc. and they were few years older. Their work paved the way for Lucas etc. in the 70's. Tarantino and Steven Soderbergh released their first films in the late 80's/early 90's, paving the way for David O. Russel, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, and other justs like Scorsese and Coppola did in the 60's and 70's. But I do have to say this latest wave of filmmakers lack the camaraderie that the movie brats of the 60's and 70's had. Oh well. Sounds like a fun fest. Three years and waiting Quentin, where's the followup to Jackie Brown?
Aug. 30, 2000, 7:05 a.m. CST
Aug. 30, 2000, 7:08 a.m. CST
Now he really is like a geek with toys, and it's sad. Jackie brown only works if you watch it a two in the morning, it's modeled on films shoved to the graveyard shift on T.V., they may be cool but it is a bit of a waste I think
Aug. 30, 2000, 7:53 a.m. CST
Don't be fooled by his always preening in the front window Starbucks over there on Greenwich in the West Village. It's just like before. He's probably got a stack of great shit to pick and choose from. Get ready for Q.T.: Round Two.
Aug. 30, 2000, 8:31 a.m. CST
Tarantino can do anything he wants, as long as he APPLIES himself, but Uma Thurman is that force known in nature that sucks all dramatic life out of a flick the second her pretty little head hits the screen - oh yeah, with the ONE notable exception being Pulp Fiction. Still, B. Fonda could kick her butt any day of the week.
Aug. 30, 2000, 8:33 a.m. CST
"As for all you folks screaming stuff like HACK and NO-TALENT... just remember, you can go through STAR WARS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, THE ROAD WARRIOR, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and a great deal of your favorite films and pull whole scenes... overall motifs and everything else straight from those films and gripe till kingdom comes about a lack of originality. Quentin makes very very good entertaining movies. If it's just a matter of 'ripping off' others' work... get out there and try it... I do believe you'll find it's a helluvalot harder than that" Funny, you scolded Tarsem for the same thing in your review of The Cell.
Aug. 30, 2000, 9:06 a.m. CST
its one thing to shoot a bunch of crap in blue light cause you saw Tony Scott and Fincher do it and claim to be a great director it is another to structure a film like Pulp Fiction which had influences but was put together BRILLIANTLY... the directors job is to TELL a story as much as show it...And as far as revenge flicks go COOL! Uma can do it I guess...why not? I just hope that he is influenced by the GREATEST REVENGE FLICK ...I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE!!!!! THAT MOVIE ROCKED and I am glad to hear he is getting back to work on some stuff...hell not 1 but 2 projects WOOHOO..now thats cool news!
Aug. 30, 2000, 9:08 a.m. CST
if Tarantino does borrow or get inspired by other female revenge films, I hope he takes a good look at I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and Abel Ferrar's finest work, the immortal 'MS. 45'.
Aug. 30, 2000, 9:12 a.m. CST
by Regis Travolta
Cartuna what about Harry as the Flaming/Exploding Hindenburg you promised me months ago?? As for Uma, remember that old song, "I want to marry you Bill, I love you Bill, I always will"...This "Kill Bill" could be about Monica Lewinsky for all we know...which would probably be funny as hell!
So, just wondering how Tarantinos balls taste. There seem to be a lot of people with them in their mouths on this line. I really think that before he is declared a genius he really should do more than 3 freakin movies! Sure, I think that they are all great as well, but come on. John Singleton's first flick was great and he was seen as the second coming and you all know what happened to him. He decided to start sucking the secong the movie was done(as cool as Shaft was, it was all about Sam.) Let him do whatever kind of flick he wants. I would love to see him tackle Sandler. I'm sure it could crash and burn hard but I would love to see him try. If he can do the Uma also before the year 2010 then maybe we can talk about his legacy and his genius.
Aug. 30, 2000, 10:22 a.m. CST
Let me say from the start that I love QT's three films - and it is the three films for which he should be judged. Each film showed growth and new ideas and expanded what we would expect of a QT film. In fact, I think that if you showed Dogs and Jackie Brown to someone who had no idea who QT was, you would have a tough time convincing them that these were done by the same director - let alone writer. Should Tarantino be compared to Scorcese? No, no no A thousand times no!!! You may even hate his movies. But he is the furthest thing from a hack out there. Nothing he does is formulaic, he puts thought and care into his scenes, he makes his actors shine, and always tries to put something up on the screen that is fun. If he was ome unknown indie filmmaker, you guys would be pawing all over him. Its just because he's gotten succcessful that there has been a backlash. But anyone who has met the guy (as I have - however briefly) has been taken over by his love of film and absolute dedication to his craft.
Aug. 30, 2000, 10:52 a.m. CST
by Brian DePalma
but how can you put down CITY ON FIRE, it's fucking Ringo Lam you ignorant bitch.
Aug. 30, 2000, 10:57 a.m. CST
People just love to put down a guy like Tarantion because so many people love his stuff. Admittedly, a lot of people give him this mythical status without knowing a goddamn thing about film. Others (film geeks) just love the fact that this video store loser with no credentials became a huge success. I am none of those (nor am I a Republican - especially since I'm Canadian - but I am nothing like the people described). I just have a healthy appreciation for interesting and entertaining film. And in my eyes, that is what Tarantion does. Why does it have to be anything more than that?
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:03 a.m. CST
The whole basic plot was exactly the same, the last scene of City on Fire where they were all in the warehouse was a brief summary of what happens in Reservior Dogs. All this stuff about the plot structure and characters being different? That's true, but the idea for code names came from "The Taking of Peckam 187", or something similar, can't remember. So Tarentino took two films and did something different with them. And the opening credits of Reservior Dogs where they're all walking in slo-mo down the street with their names appearing in front is a more high tech version of the closing of Oceans Eleven. Tarentino ecxels (sp?) at this, but that doesn't make his films bad, as Harry stated in the report. Reservior Dogs is one of my fave films, as is Pulp Fiction, but i can see that they are not all that original in their ideas, it's what Tarentino does with his plot structures and camera shots that makes him the great director he is.
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:08 a.m. CST
I don't even understand your first sentence. "in other words, the defects of tarantino cinema is political: pretend edginess and give it the superficial veneer of "hip" while avoiding the implications deposited-- like somebody letting his dog crap all over the sidewalk refusing to clean it up." Who are you calling superficial? QT or his fans? Wait who even owns the dog in this little analogy? Please try to have some clarity in your rants. And then you say, "In 1994 the loudest fanboy acclaim for Crap Fiction came from 20-ish young Republican males who previously were all about Back to the Future, and Weird Science, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, finally getting the chance to stroke themselves over being "hip"." Okay, so even if that were true-- assuming for the sake of argument that it is true-- what the f*ck??? What kind of pretentious a-hole are you???? So some young people who are not artistic got to feel hip....they don't deserve to be expand their horizons? Maybe they weren't raised in some kind of neo-hippie environment where their artistic side was allowed to flourish. Not every kid gets named River Phoenix you know. Instead of writing people off as shallow yuppies and slamming them for undeservedly feeling hip-- why don't you show a little fucking compassion?
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:10 a.m. CST
<<in other words, the defects of tarantino cinema is political: pretend edginess and give it the superficial veneer of "hip" while avoiding the implications deposited>> What the hell are you talking about! Do you even know?? or are you just dissing on the guy who wrote it cause his work is good and it is cool to be the only one to see the "flaws" so you concoct some dumbass statement about pseudo political philosophy and bash PF. Silly me I didn't see any political ramifications in PF I was too busy enjoying the well built story, I guess I just don't have that keen eye you do. I try not to rip on people I REALLY DO BUT WHEN I SEE STUPID CRAP LIKE THIS IT GETS HARD TO PRACTICE RESTRAINT. You deserve to be dissed dude by anyone else who rips on you. I don't know what film your talking about or how Q handles political situations like someone letting their dog crap all over and refusing to clean it up...do you know or understand how analogies work? What the hell does that mean? Your saying he is socially irresponsible but at the same time doesn't say anything "really edgy" it just makes no sence...are your referring to his portayal of drug addicts I just don't know what you are going for...so I paraphrase an Adam Sandler movie (since Q might work with him it is appropriate) At no time in that meandering statement did you appraoch something that even resembled a thought...we are all stupider for having read it....LASTLY, silly me I thought Weird Science was about watching Kelly LeBrocks ass.
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:17 a.m. CST
That anyone is dissecting Tarantion's films like this. And the crazy thing is...I bet he finds it hilarious too. The guy is just trying to make his films how he wants them and (gasp, horror) people seem to like them. I love this whole "who did Tarantino rip off" thing. I think its hilarious because TARANTINO NEVER DENIES IT!!! He admits that he rips people off and has no shame about it. So why does it matter?
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:19 a.m. CST
The problem with your (ahem) analysis of Tarantino is that, again, he does not deny this. I wish someone could explain to me why people react so aggressively to Tarantino. I think maybe it is a bit of jealousy that a film geek like hm can rise to the top of the world, while the film geeks in here can only rise to being the first person to post.
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:32 a.m. CST
John Q..... it's okay to disagree. I'm not kidding. When you write: "It's just that other people are much better at it (stealing), and have more than 70's cool and pop culture on the brain. HACK!!! NO-TALENT!!!" You can have that opinion. People disagree about film all the time. Please don't stress. Relax. You don't have to vent on talkback. Nobody is going to take your Quentin hating opinion away from you. You don't need to prove anything because it is okay to disagree.
Aug. 30, 2000, 11:39 a.m. CST
For some people, when they hear the m\name Tarantino, they can't help but blurt "hack" or "rip off" kinda like Kramer and mary Hart.
Aug. 30, 2000, 12:02 p.m. CST
Hull is a Sophist...it doesn't matter what side you take he will never argue a point...as seen by that nine friggen page mess between him and like 4 people over the weekend...I never scrolled down so much. He won't argue a point but just... argue so ignore him. You can point out all the things you want and he will never address the good points just the way you stated them. I have "interacted" before and lets just say this is a guy who defends Coyote Ugly and Bring it On with all the zeal of a zombie like scientologist. And it is my fault which is why I won't ever post under a project I don't care about anymore that is what Hull has taught me. So until he gets the picture that goading people by posting under stuff they like and saying it sucks won't work anymore ignore him.In one sentence all he cares about are boobies and the next he is bashing the exploitive methods of Tarantino...You can't argue with that nonsensical mentality...If he hates Q don't read the news I am not saying people shouldn't critique stuff but if you hate EVERYTHING the guy has done why bother you know his fans will undoubtedly "fight back" resulting in said 9 page mess...hell if Q did a remake of Switchblade Sisters with Kirsten Dunst and Julia Stiles he would be the first in line...hell I'D BE THE FIRST IN LINE, Q DO THAT PLEASE!
Aug. 30, 2000, 12:33 p.m. CST
Sundown, I disagree. I think communication is healthy and sorry you have to hurt your hand scrolling down-- but I think ignoring QT bashers drags down the whole tone of the board. And I think that ignoring the criticism of QT is as equally inane as yelling HACK!!! Both are dogmatic and boring. I don't mind discussing the merits of his work although this isn't exactly the place for it.... until there is a place for some kind of QT pro and con talkback then these anti-Quentin posters feel that they don't have a forum for discussing film and that's what this is all about anyway.
Aug. 30, 2000, 12:39 p.m. CST
In the spirit of good communication didn't Quentin uh, I forget-- bitch or pimp-- I think bitch slap some guy in a restaurant who was insulting him all around Hollywood.... Sooooooooooo--- I think Quentin isn't the rise above it and ignore it type but into good communication, too. :P
Aug. 30, 2000, 12:48 p.m. CST
but if you read the massive argument between El MAriachi Hull and the other guys and gals that downgraded into name calling and other bs you'd see there was NO communication going on there and in fact they killed all good debate...I have no problem arguing a point over Q or anything else and often have here but some people don't argue points they pick fights and yell RIP OR HACK...thats not at all communication...Hull is like that and thats why I ignore him and others like him but KS tried to make a point as warped as it was...so there is a difference between the two...
Aug. 30, 2000, 1:01 p.m. CST
Sundown I didn't realize he was so insincere. Point taken.
Aug. 30, 2000, 1:24 p.m. CST
by Fatal Discharge
then started to believe his own hype and then thought he could act. Funny how no-one mentions the god-awful FOUR ROOMS either. JACKIE BROWN had some nice stuff between Forster and Grier but I didn't care about any of the other characters. Plus, it was too similar to the previous 2 films: complex story structure, non-linear narratives (I'll never forget hearing this idiot in the theatre after PULP FICTION ended saying "but I thought John Travolta was dead"), low-life criminals, sudden violence, etc. I'm not saying great directors don't have similar elements in their films but after these three I'm glad he's doing something way different. Anyway, it's been 6 years since PULP FICTION so his "film genius" label is starting to wear mighty thin so make something - anything!
Aug. 30, 2000, 1:25 p.m. CST
ut-oh? Hope I didn't give harry any ideas...anyways I didn't mean it as a knock against you I just didn't want to see it start up again..where as you made points Hull just attacked your presentation...he had nothing to say...so it wasn't even a debate...I don't blame you or him I just REALLY didn't want to go through that again as I was gonna post before and purposely stood out of it...I like Q and I like writing about him...and I got into an even worse fight over Coyote Ugly and Bring it On with him that was actually worse than yours so I am guilty to..I learned from it though....anyways isn't it funny how both Lam and Woo got saddled with Van Damme in their first films...atleat Q helped Chows career...and with crime movies basic plot is the least important thing...it is the way in which he presented it. Dogs channeled more than just City of Fire with pop references. The performances and style fo the movie make it similiar to a stage play...it was CARRIED on performance no doubt all style aside if the actors weren't ALL up to it that movie would suck and a good director can get good performances from people...that was where Dogs ultimatly succeeded...PS Switchblade Sisters rules!
Aug. 30, 2000, 1:59 p.m. CST
I don't care who rips off what from where, if the movie's good it's good. THE MATRIX lifts stuff from countless sources, but it's re-assembled into something completely new and invigorating. Just about every memorable scene in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is reworked from a cheesy Republic serial. (Check out the old DICK TRACY serial and you'll be shocked at how many scenarios were completely lifted from it). What matters is how well those elements are used, and wether or not the filmmaker brings something new to the table. With Tarantino, it's that crackling dialogue. With the Wachowski's, it's visual ingenuity. With Spielberg, it's magnificently paced and choreographed action scenes, and a level of realism never achieved in those Republic serials. So wether you call it homage or theft, I don't care where filmmakers get their ideas from, as long as they do justice to the original inspiration (or hopefully even improve upon it)
Aug. 30, 2000, 2:44 p.m. CST
Like a poor marksman you keep MISSING the target.. The only reason I said what I said before is the same reason I say what I say now...you posted something that turned into a 10 page flame war on the last Q backtalk and I wanted to head this one off at the pass...so I say this..I know how much genius you think is in the following statements "They & Harry have their noses so far up QT's ass that they constantly defend him, saying he can do no wrong" and . "HACK!!! NO-TALENT" and while I am sure you believe these comments exude pure intellence I have no desire to watch you and some poor dude or dudette (s) go at it for nine hours with the same two comments "he is a hack he sucks" vs "everybody steals" etc the truth is you have nothing to say...and for the record I LOVE boobies and if you want to see a movie with actual SUBSTANCE with boobies then watch Switchblade Sisters which is about a thousand times more worthwhile than whipped and coyote stupid and all the other teen sludge..so enough with the generic lame Q is a rip and hack bs and I notice when I stopped the flame war you had to post again to begin anew cause you can't just say your piece if the discussion moves on you have to interject cause it can't be about Q it has to be about you...you rposts might as well read..Dont talk about Q its me, I am a genius, ME ME ME!!!... atleast come up with something new or wait for the next crappy teen movie, I promise I won't post there..and its not personal film geek.
Aug. 30, 2000, 3:39 p.m. CST
Um, I'm not a film geek. I'm a girl first of all and I have a *crush* on Quentin. Sooo my interest is probably a little different than most of the other posters. (And I know that people date their peers. Mira and Quentin were a great couple because they both had academy awards and they had the whole young Hollywood thing going on, but still I always like to hear what he's doing.) But anyway, KS what you wrote: "who would want to upset a "SOUL SUCKING JERK" anyway?" Um, I am assuming that you mean me but again I wish you would clarify whom you are actually trying to insult. Then you wrote: "Besides which, I don't see too many fans of Kurosawa, Kubrick, Peckinpah, Milius, Wong kar Wai or even Paul Verhoeven or for that matter real movies in general typing illiterate putdowns at us without backing it up with an excuse." Um, illiterate putdowns meaning.... what? Please clarify what you are insulting. If you meant my post to you, I don't think it was illiterate. When I insulted you in my post-- which I did-- I had a reason because you were being a big snob about yuppies. I don't think it is fair to say what you said about a group of people. And I stand by my post. (To break it down to the basics. Reason=snob.) "Maybe I was wrong with my assessment of the tarantino clique's politics-- I doubt many of them even understand they have any." KS how can I break this to you? Your putdown of my lack of understanding would carry more weight if you could actually clarify what you were talking about to begin with... To continue.. "I was using personal experience in my former theater dept. as an example of white bread dweebs suddenly getting to be cool once Roger Ebert and Entertainment Weekly said it was OK." Okay, so you didn't like the QT fans that you came in contact with-- point taken. Finally "The tarantino army is looking a lot like those aging fans of Quiet Riot and Slaughter, unable to let the fad dry up and die." Am I supposed to be insulted that you called him a fad? And I'm not trying to start a flame war either. It just seems like the people who don't like Quentin are extremely vague in their posts.
Aug. 30, 2000, 4:01 p.m. CST
KS thank you for posting something specific. (I agree with unknownmutant about that.) You wrote: "And putting scenes out of order is hardly radical, just naive." I disagree with that because the moral of Pulp Fiction was that the one who gives up the life of crime lives and the one who doesn't give up the life of crime dies. Crime doesn't pay and bad karma and all that. But the BEAUTIFUL thing about it is that Travolta dies in the middle. So we know he dies-- but then at the end of the movie we find out the moral which is that he didn't give up the life of crime. It was absolutely beautiful way to present the movie.
Aug. 30, 2000, 4:08 p.m. CST
"Can't we all just get along?"
Aug. 30, 2000, 4:47 p.m. CST
I'm sick of hearing people call QT a hack... especially for Pulp Fiction. I once heard someone insulting the film because it had a lot of familiar scenes and discussions that had taken place long before. I sat there in shock, thinking "Do you even know why the film is CALLED Pulp Fiction? Do you even know what pulp fiction IS?" All of these "original" stories we see nowadays, well... they've been done before. The only exceptions are movies that place an emphasis on current social commentary, which can only be applied to the time period in which it was released. Even some of these stories have been done before in different periods, as history tends to repeat itself. Yes, American Beauty and Fight Club were original and I loved both of those films, but some of the ideas were used explicitly in the 1920's. Books like Babbitt (by Sinclair Lewis) were very similar in theme, including anti-work, advertising, posessions, prohibition/marijuana, etc.... of course, I don't think they made a movie out of that one, but you still get my point.
Aug. 30, 2000, 5:02 p.m. CST
Aug. 30, 2000, 6:12 p.m. CST
Yeah, I understand about rushing posts too. No problem.
Aug. 30, 2000, 6:41 p.m. CST
by EL Duderino
I totally understand why you wouldn't want to do that. This is his deal, and I'm sure he doesn't like to talk abou this job or future projects, since this is like his getaway here. We'll just have to wait and see I guess, and I'm pretty surprised at how many rumours are out there about critically acclaimed directors wanting to cast Sandler in their next films. Stuff like this that comes out just brings me closer to the suspicion that the end is very, very nigh.
Aug. 30, 2000, 7:23 p.m. CST
It's a waste of precious cellulloid in my opinnion. It's cult, but that doesn't make it good. It's crappy in every sense of the word. And can we ease on the John Q. Hull VS. the whole talkback again? I think we discussed that plenty on the other Q.T. talkback. I was also arguing with John, and I understood that he will never like Q.T., his mind is too closed to even give him a chance. So let's not waste time on his sensless Coyote Ugly worshipping posts and move on. Unless he says something really stupid and you can't wait to rub it in his face, then, I'll understand.
Aug. 30, 2000, 7:54 p.m. CST
...Sounds pretty pretentious to me. By the way, Quentin can put the words he wants on his character's mouths. It is called artistic freedom. Spike Lee uses it all the time, and he is black. You can't say that a black man can use the word nigger but a white man can't. It's racist to say that. I am not bothered when Spike Lee's characters says something despective about white people, because that is a CHARACTER talking. It is not necessarily the writer venting his own personal feelings. There are no political implications in the fact that a black man was raped in PULP FICTION. Either. And why didn't you say anything about the rapist? He was white, and he was sexually inforcing himself into another human being, by your rational this could be considered a political implication then? And the guy that John Travolta shots in the face, died because Travolta's character (a white man) screwed up stupidly. And the coolest character in that movie was a black man (Samuel L. Jackson's Jules, if you don't remember)
Aug. 30, 2000, 8:54 p.m. CST
by Jedi Clampett
Mr. Hull throws out the bait and you all bite. Arguing about whether your opinion is better than the other guys is boring. The only thing in this whole batch worth discussing is how lame it would be for any "A" list director to get involved with a no-talent like Adam Sandler. What a waste of art.
Aug. 31, 2000, 2:37 a.m. CST
I'm going to completely bypass this macho display of tough guy back and forth . . .I've got some questions I'd like answered. To anyone who has any knowledge . . .IMDB.com has had a little something up for some time for a movie by Mr. Tarantino called "40 Lashes." Now, is this the WWII movie, or something else entirely? Also, on the subject of this "female revenge movie . . ." I honestly hope he chooses something else to do. The whole genre of revenge movies in general is a tricky thing. Either you make an enduring classic (Point Blank) OR complete and utter crap (Double Jeparody, Point Blank's quasi-remake Payback). It's just difficult to imagine even Tarantino breathing life into such a one-dimensional genre. I mean, how much more straight forward can you get--person is wronged, person sets out to right the wrong, person succeeds/fails. Doing it all out of joint wouldn't work . . .Soderbergh has already done it with his 70's revenge film homage, The Limey. Memorable dialogue is nice . . .but I don't know. To paraphrase, it would have to be one charming muthafuckin' pig. Any thoughts?
Aug. 31, 2000, 3:33 a.m. CST
for those who are not aware, there is a practice on these talkbacks known as trolling. This is a fishing term meaning to dangle bait from the back of a moving boat in order to cause fish to follow and get hooked. I believe the parallel is obvious. Please be aware when certain people are posting things like "So and so sucks ass" they are probably trying to lure you into one of these inane talkbacks, while laughing hysterically at you for getting involved in the first place. I don't mean to sound like an asshole here, I just am fed up with this stupid "QT is a hack!" "No he isn't!" "Blow me!" type talkbacks.
Aug. 31, 2000, 4:06 a.m. CST
First off, what does any of this have to do with the price of butter in Red China? If you dig QT's movies then watch them and complain that he hasn't made more. If you think he is a thieving no-talent hack then fuck you. No really, fuck you for becoming so polarized that you would say something like that and not recognize that someone has merits, what ever they may be. Now sure I don't think QT is necessarily in the same category as some of the greats in film, but I do admire the fact that he likes film. Not just that summer blockbuster or the over-hyped arthouse picture, he enjoys all film. He can find things in movies that many people haven't seen or wouldn't want to see, and find something worthwhile in them. That is part of the point of this little film fest that harry is hyping. I beleive that he is the type of person who wants to share the things he finds cool with other people. If that makes him a no-talent hack who doesn't deserve to lick Scorcese's boots, then I think you really have problems. Example: MY MOTHER LOVES PULP FICTION She doesn't fit into most categories I'm sure but still, She loves the film. On the same note she hates Resevoir Dogs. What does this mean? Not a fucking thing. I'm just trying to show that there are other view points in the world. I've already addressed the trollers, but this post is for you people out there who think that you are some how better people for lambasting a guy for putting themselves out there and trying to entertain. I know what it's like to start giving a guy shit for his shortcomings, Spielberg being my choice, but if one doesn't stand back and say "Hey this guy did Raiders, or something else that I like" then I become an asshole for thinking I could be cool by shitting on his career. The same applies to you people out there who really would like to lick QT's scrotum. I must say though that you people have been faily good at conceiding points about him. So lets just keep it clean people. And sorry for taking so much space with this lame excuse of a post, and for being a no-good hippie peacenick again.
Aug. 31, 2000, 6:37 a.m. CST
all this bagging of mr T reminds me of what us aussies call tall poppie syndrome. ie someone gets too big for his/her boots/too popular/too sucessful so people try to cut them down to size (ie start knocking them)... anyway thats all i wanted to say. have a nice day. go out and play. please dont eat the hay. it is many months until May. Horray!
Aug. 31, 2000, 7:08 a.m. CST
Your insults are falling COMPLETELY off base! You wrote: "I know what it's like to start giving a guy shit for his shortcomings, Spielberg being my choice, but if one doesn't stand back and say "Hey this guy did Raiders, or something else that I like" then I become an asshole for thinking I could be cool by shitting on his career. The same applies to you people out there who really would like to lick QT's scrotum." Am I supposed to be insulted by that? :P When did I ever say.... uh nevermind.
Aug. 31, 2000, 9:13 a.m. CST
thats no way for a lady to talk...then again you are a QT fan so all things being equal you could have probably come up with something A LOT NASTIER...that comment was pretty funny and sadly true...anyways good for KS in actually making a point in his sundown the mighty rant. It made a HUNDRED thousand times more sence then the other post...I agree with the responses though and think he was answered more then well enough by abysinth and soulsuckinjerk...one minor point...I am italian...I went to a virtually all black school that had the highest crime rate in NY which made it probably one of the worst in the country...I heard THAT word a lot...most everyone there LIKED that film...I have many black friends because I worked a while in comics and honestly the best artists I have met are black AND they continually get screwed because of racism but I digress..buy and large they liked it as much as I did and I didn't hear them complain over the use of the word...I happen to like dogs more and they see flaws in that film but whatever, WHO AGREES? IS PF a perfect film...no but I think your observations are somewhat oversensitive and you're overanalyzing stuff a bit like the pot thing. I didn't see it as this big yuppy white, anti black nazi film...I saw a well put together story...as far as Stone goes he SUCKS!!! there is a man who gets WAY too much credit...NBK was one of the best scripts I have EVER read, period and he turned it into a lame cartoon...The Bruce Lee court scene was AWESOME!!! as far as Peckinpah you bring up a good point...Straw Dogs virtually invented the seige movie...Carpenter ripped it in Assault... Walter Hill ripped it TWICE in Southern Comfort and ALIENS...QT ripped Assault in DD atleast he threw in the ASSAULT shirt..so who is the bigger rip? is Cameron a hack??? Your argument seems to be that simply the other guys do it better...but he is a hack...I think his films are every bit as cool as these other "inspired" artists atleast he credits his ideas source and brings attention to older films that deserve it...Also True Romance is an obvious rip/homage of Badlands so because Tony Scott directed QTs script and decided to go all the way and include narration and the music is he a rip artist too?
Aug. 31, 2000, 11:05 a.m. CST
THEY CALL HER ONE EYE is actually a swedish moobie... Dutch female revenge film... Sheesh! =)
Aug. 31, 2000, 12:01 p.m. CST
You wrote: "It's just difficult to imagine even Tarantino breathing life into such a one-dimensional genre (revenge picture)." There are three types of stories which are 1) survive/succumb 2)good/evil and 3) love/hate. Quentin is a love/hate person and probably typical revenge stories are survive/succumb. Quentin could breath life into it by all the little details about the main character (love that main character be it Jules or Jackie) and all the little details about the bad guy (hate that bad guy). People can be characterized in the same way, too. (I'm love/hate and maybe that's why QT's talkbacks get so fierce.) Survive/succumb is like South Park or Scooby Doo where the characters are always trying to DO something and the whole story is about how they are doing it. In Scooby Doo, it's not that the bad guy is evil-- no it is all about the trap door and the scary monster and running around-- total survive/succumb stuff. Chicken Run is survive/succumb-- escape the farm!!!! You can throw in love/hate or good/evil tones but the main theme of the movie is only one type. Ummmmm, Disney was a good/evil person. That's why he was always doing fairy tales and stuff where good triumphs over evil. Lucas is good/evil too which was why Menace sucked because he spent way too much time on the good/evil aspect and not enough on the characters-- ah, which a love/hate type person wouldn't do..... just my opinion on stuff. :)
Aug. 31, 2000, 12:09 p.m. CST
Um, I said earlier that the moral of Pulp Fiction was that good is rewarded and evil is punished so it has a good/evil moral. I still stand by that statement but I think it is a good/evil overtone in a love/hate movie.
Aug. 31, 2000, 12:38 p.m. CST
Say what you want about QT, but dont give him credit where credit isn't due. He did NOT direct Dusk til Dawn, Silent Bob, he only acted in it. Using that movie as an example of his so-called downward slide as a director that you describe is inaccurate. Stick to what he actually directed, will ya?
Aug. 31, 2000, 8:46 p.m. CST
This film could put Marvel back on the map again-- He could hire Sylvester Stallone, and revive his career as Frank Castle, war vet whose family is murdered by a mob hit crossfire.. he becomes a one-man war against organized crime.. Adapt the current PUNISHER series, and it's a sure hit.. be sure to include the polar bears..
Sept. 1, 2000, 1:31 a.m. CST
I am so sick of your constant, mindless Q bashing. If you have a legitiment argument, then make the case...but the "hack" claim is both ignorant and undeserved. When I first read of the City on Fire plagerism in Film Threat Magazine I was concerned...UNTIL I SAW City on Fire. You can pull any one or two scenes from ANY film and compare it to some previous ones with Stone-like consipiricy theory, but that film is NOTHING like Dogs. Scorsase took from his fav films, Coppola did the same, and why doesn't anyone crap about the fact that most American filmmakers "borrowed" from the foreigners like Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Eisenstien, Goddard. Don't use hack if you don't know your film history- and leave our generations brightest alone.