Tarantino

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Tarantino

Postby cypherspace » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:52 pm UTC

Lover? Hater? Favourite film? What do you think of Quentin Tarantino?

Inspired by having seen Death Proof last week and thinking it was fucking amazing, I found it surprising there wasn't already a Tarantino thread in this forum. I still think Pulp Fiction is one of the greatest movies ever, and Reservoir Dogs not far behind, I think his ability to pick a soundtrack is unparalleled, and we all know about the dialogue. Does anyone hate that style of dialogue, or think it's some of the best they've heard? I'm in the latter camp.
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

User avatar
Naurgul
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:50 am UTC
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Naurgul » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:02 pm UTC

I've only watched Kill Bill and the beginning from Pulp Fiction so far (sue me) and he's alright. I like his work from what I have seen. Which reminds me, gotta watch more of his films.
Last edited by Naurgul on Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:03 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

Abstruse
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:17 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Abstruse » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:02 pm UTC

I'm at the "Autographed photo" stage of tarantinophilia.

KB2

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Tarantino

Postby Felstaff » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:06 pm UTC

Jackie Brown was his best (and only) 'serious' film. I wish'd he had continued down this route, rather than the silliness of parodying the sheer unrealism of classic genre movies.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
DarkKnightJared
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:10 am UTC
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby DarkKnightJared » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Jackie Brown was his best (and only) 'serious' film. I wish'd he had continued down this route, rather than the silliness of parodying the sheer unrealism of classic genre movies.


Eh, Jackie Brown I thought was the lesser of his works--not bad by a long shot, but Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction is far better.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Tarantino

Postby Felstaff » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:29 pm UTC

Oh yeah, of course. Cracking story, (for Reservoir Dogs at least) plus punchy dialogue (for Pulp Fiction at least) with funky MOBO soundtracks, washed-up actors due for a resurrection, all from a precocious amateur with an encyclopædic knowledge of the top 100 films of any genre except Bolly/Nollywood. That mixed together and you can't get more perfectly indie. Palm d'Ors all the way.

However, Jackie Brown is a serious piece of work from an established and respected author. I think it was Tarantino's first 'grown-up' film, and he had the balls to not only change the title and main character's name to fit his own Pam Grier ideals, but also to fit all his (now) trademarked stylistic techniques in it so it becomes 100% Tarantino, 0% Leonard. A big amount of respect is needed for that kinda galljib.

Then he kinda took steps backwards. I meant to say 'homage' in my last post, but wrote 'parodied' instead. Freudian slip, perchance? It wasn't intentional. His Asian/Grindhouse homages were too comic-book to be homage, and one step on the wrong side of glib, so it became a sort of mimicry of martial arts in Kill Bill and of cheap, grainy, cinema-nasty in Death Proof.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: Tarantino

Postby sugarhyped » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

I just want to say I like Tarantino movies, but Kill Bill is horribly overrated.
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

User avatar
theonlyjett
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:14 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby theonlyjett » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:33 pm UTC

I think Tarantino and Whedon are both in the same camp to me. The both know the medium they use forwards and backwards and as such, tend to come at their projects from a different perspective than most people in their field. Do you ever sit around with your friends and say, "wow, they should totally make a movie about that?" Or, "that would be fun to make a movie/show about." I feel like both these guys do exactly that, except then they go and actually do it. I don't feel like they try to make everybody happy with all their stuff and it shows. Some things are awesome, some things are so-so, but in all it looks like they have fun doing it, and that feeling is what makes me like their stuff.

It's hard for me to say which Tarantino film I like the best. There was a lot about Kill Bill that was fun. Jackie Brown was a great movie. Pulp Fiction, well, to be honest, I loved it, but I feel that with Jackson, Travolta, Willis, and Roth in the same movie, you probably could have had a monkey write and direct that one, and I would have liked it.

It's funny to me that no one ever mentions "The Man From Hollywood" segment from Four Rooms. It's the real gem of an otherwise unnoteworthy film.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Malice » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:47 pm UTC

I enjoy most of Tarantino's movies very much. Kill Bill is one of my favorites, as is Reservoir Dogs, and Death Proof is as if the best low-budget action movie of the 70s got left, unshown and forgotten, in a dusty closet until it was found and paired with Rodriguez's (equally awesome) parody.

Jackie Brown I only saw once; for the most part I feel it lacks the manic energy of the rest of his work.

Pulp Fiction is amazingly entertaining, but I dislike how utterly shallow it is. There's only one scene of character growth and emotion in the entire movie, and the rest of it often feels like a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'm very much looking forward to his semi-remake of Inglorious Bastards. I like the way he's been growing as a director, going from mostly dialogue-driven work to stories like Death Proof and Kill Bill which are much more visually oriented.

I also just like the guy. I've had the good fortune to be able to meet and talk with him several times (he holds film festivals of grindhouse and other old movies every year or two in my home town), and he's not only incredibly nice*, easy-going, and funny, but he knows just about everything about movies, and his love shines through in every conversation. QT's shown me some really awesome stuff I never would have seen otherwise (the awesome Paul "Taxi Driver" Schraeder revenge film, Rolling Thunder, for instance, or the surrealistic lesbian vampire movie, The Blood-Spattered Bride), and really helped to invigorate my love of movies and my desire to make them.

*not like Rodriguez, who is, unfortunately, a bit of a dick.
Image

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Re: Tarantino

Postby cypherspace » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:10 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Then he kinda took steps backwards. I meant to say 'homage' in my last post, but wrote 'parodied' instead. Freudian slip, perchance? It wasn't intentional. His Asian/Grindhouse homages were too comic-book to be homage, and one step on the wrong side of glib, so it became a sort of mimicry of martial arts in Kill Bill and of cheap, grainy, cinema-nasty in Death Proof.

Isn't that part of the charm? I thought that was pretty much the point of him doing them. He loves those styles (because in the main, he just loves cinema) but recognises their ridiculous qualities, so his films become ridiculous, ultra-stylised version of the genres he's paying homage to. I wasn't a huge fan of Kill Bill but Death Proof was utterly superb, and the grainy elements and missing reel segments only enhanced it in my opinion. It's a work of art in the most literal sense, not just a storytelling vehicle, in the same way a painting isn't just a representation of a scene. It's the technique and the personal touches that make it interesting, and there's far too little art in today's cinema, so when it comes around it's worth savouring.
Pulp Fiction is amazingly entertaining, but I dislike how utterly shallow it is. There's only one scene of character growth and emotion in the entire movie, and the rest of it often feels like a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Again, I rather see that as the point. I don't feel that's a flaw in the movie. Tarantino proved he could do character development in Reservoir Dogs, so a lack of it in this film doesn't strike me as a mistake, but deliberate, so I concentrate on the elements he intended in the movie - the sound and fury, the dialogue, the style.
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Malice » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:30 am UTC

cypherspace wrote:
Pulp Fiction is amazingly entertaining, but I dislike how utterly shallow it is. There's only one scene of character growth and emotion in the entire movie, and the rest of it often feels like a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Again, I rather see that as the point. I don't feel that's a flaw in the movie. Tarantino proved he could do character development in Reservoir Dogs, so a lack of it in this film doesn't strike me as a mistake, but deliberate, so I concentrate on the elements he intended in the movie - the sound and fury, the dialogue, the style.


I agree that it was probably deliberate; I'm explaining why I personally don't enjoy it as much as I do his other, less bloodless movies.
Image

User avatar
KingLoser
Obnoxious Distraction
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:04 pm UTC
Location: Port Láirge, Éire
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby KingLoser » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:40 am UTC

I'm a fan, more attached to the older movies, but have no particular order on them.

How do you fellow fans feel about Natural Born Killers? Tarantino and Stone duo was like a dream come true for me.
Add me on: Last.fm | Facebook | Flickr doodz.
Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt díog dúnta.

Abstruse
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:17 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Abstruse » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:53 am UTC

Then he kinda took steps backwards. I meant to say 'homage' in my last post, but wrote 'parodied' instead. Freudian slip, perchance? It wasn't intentional. His Asian/Grindhouse homages were too comic-book to be homage, and one step on the wrong side of glib, so it became a sort of mimicry of martial arts in Kill Bill and of cheap, grainy, cinema-nasty in Death Proof.



KB was also a Western as well as a Martial Arts Genre piece.

User avatar
ishikiri
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:04 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby ishikiri » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:17 pm UTC

Abstruse wrote:
Then he kinda took steps backwards. I meant to say 'homage' in my last post, but wrote 'parodied' instead. Freudian slip, perchance? It wasn't intentional. His Asian/Grindhouse homages were too comic-book to be homage, and one step on the wrong side of glib, so it became a sort of mimicry of martial arts in Kill Bill and of cheap, grainy, cinema-nasty in Death Proof.



KB was also a Western as well as a Martial Arts Genre piece.

That may a moot point though, as pretty much every famous western flick is actually a rip-off of a Japanese Samurai flick.
theonlyjett wrote:I think Tarantino and Whedon are both in the same camp to me. The both know the medium they use forwards and backwards and as such, tend to come at their projects from a different perspective than most people in their field.

I've made the same point myself.

Felstaff wrote:However, Jackie Brown is a serious piece of work from an established and respected author. I think it was Tarantino's first 'grown-up' film, and he had the balls to not only change the title and main character's name to fit his own Pam Grier ideals, but also to fit all his (now) trademarked stylistic techniques in it so it becomes 100% Tarantino, 0% Leonard. A big amount of respect is needed for that kinda galljib.

Isn't Jackie Brown the only film he's done with a linear narrative? Where its not out of sequence. . . I've seen QT argue a few times, when someone raises a point about the mixed up timelines, that no-one would have any problem with this if it was as part of a novel.

Agree with you about QT's ability to make the work his own (although if I had read the book I'd probably be saying something different :D) I don't see how Jackie Brown is a more serious work just because it is based off of a Novel.
clintonius wrote:The "thwak thwak thwak" in this movie makes me think they cranked up a powerpoint slideshow of angry pictures set to the soundtrack of a furious masturbator.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:38 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Jackie Brown was his best (and only) 'serious' film. I wish'd he had continued down this route, rather than the silliness of parodying the sheer unrealism of classic genre movies.

Reservoir Dogs wasn't serious?

Abstruse
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:17 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Abstruse » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

That may a moot point though, as pretty much every famous western flick is actually a rip-off of a Japanese Samurai flick.


Oh yeah!? Well what about the Magnificent Seven?!?!

Wait.. fuck. You win.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Malice » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:14 pm UTC

ishikiri wrote:
Abstruse wrote:
Then he kinda took steps backwards. I meant to say 'homage' in my last post, but wrote 'parodied' instead. Freudian slip, perchance? It wasn't intentional. His Asian/Grindhouse homages were too comic-book to be homage, and one step on the wrong side of glib, so it became a sort of mimicry of martial arts in Kill Bill and of cheap, grainy, cinema-nasty in Death Proof.



KB was also a Western as well as a Martial Arts Genre piece.

That may a moot point though, as pretty much every famous western flick is actually a rip-off of a Japanese Samurai flick.


I believe that actually started with The Magnificent Seven (which inspired Sergio Leone), which came out in 1960. There were Westerns going back long, long before that (like what may be the first narrative movie ever, The Great Train Robbery), and in fact Kurosawa himself was influenced by classic American westerns, especially those by John Ford.

I think it's just that the genres work well together, because both tend to feature a solitary hero, skilled at a ritualized form of combat, roaming the land and enforcing a moral or legal code in a rural area within a specific historical/social context.

Felstaff wrote:However, Jackie Brown is a serious piece of work from an established and respected author. I think it was Tarantino's first 'grown-up' film, and he had the balls to not only change the title and main character's name to fit his own Pam Grier ideals, but also to fit all his (now) trademarked stylistic techniques in it so it becomes 100% Tarantino, 0% Leonard. A big amount of respect is needed for that kinda galljib.

Isn't Jackie Brown the only film he's done with a linear narrative? Where its not out of sequence. . . I've seen QT argue a few times, when someone raises a point about the mixed up timelines, that no-one would have any problem with this if it was as part of a novel.


I seem to recall Jackie Brown having some non-linear elements.

Actually, though, Death Proof is entirely linear.
True Romance, although linear on the screen, was written to start in media res (beginning at the scene where Clarence takes his new wife home to his father) and double back to explain (what is now) the first act in flashback at the end of what is now the second.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the way QT uses formal elements of novels (chapters, non-linearity, stories within stories, etc.) in his films. It makes them feel much more unique.

Agree with you about QT's ability to make the work his own (although if I had read the book I'd probably be saying something different :D) I don't see how Jackie Brown is a more serious work just because it is based off of a Novel.


It isn't; it's a more serious work because it's a more serious work. It's a movie about characters, we believe in the characters, we trust the story, there's no stylistic flim-flam going on (very little, at any rate). It's a very normal crime film compared to his usual stuff.
Image

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Tarantino

Postby Felstaff » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:28 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Felstaff wrote:Jackie Brown was his best (and only) 'serious' film. I wish'd he had continued down this route, rather than the silliness of parodying the sheer unrealism of classic genre movies.

Reservoir Dogs wasn't serious?

Screwball comedy. Like THE HOURS.
Last edited by Felstaff on Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

Abstruse
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:17 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Abstruse » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:43 pm UTC

I believe that actually started with The Magnificent Seven (which inspired Sergio Leone), which came out in 1960. There were Westerns going back long, long before that (like what may be the first narrative movie ever, The Great Train Robbery), and in fact Kurosawa himself was influenced by classic American westerns, especially those by John Ford.

I think it's just that the genres work well together, because both tend to feature a solitary hero, skilled at a ritualized form of combat, roaming the land and enforcing a moral or legal code in a rural area within a specific historical/social context.



I like that interpretation.

Book I would love to see turned into a feature film; Blood Meridian.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Malice » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:20 pm UTC

Abstruse wrote:Book I would love to see turned into a feature film; Blood Meridian.


Here you go.
Image

Abstruse
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:17 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Abstruse » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:23 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Abstruse wrote:Book I would love to see turned into a feature film; Blood Meridian.


Here you go.


Aren't you just full of usefulness.

Could be the best western ever. So bloody Sam Peckinpaw would boycott it.

User avatar
ishikiri
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:04 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby ishikiri » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:46 am UTC

Malice wrote:
Agree with you about QT's ability to make the work his own (although if I had read the book I'd probably be saying something different :D) I don't see how Jackie Brown is a more serious work just because it is based off of a Novel.


It isn't; it's a more serious work because it's a more serious work. It's a movie about characters, we believe in the characters, we trust the story, there's no stylistic flim-flam going on (very little, at any rate). It's a very normal crime film compared to his usual stuff.

I didn't consider that, I like the description of it being a "normal film". Although some of the stuff with Jackson and de Niro is pretty classsic Tarrantino - The man can't help himself.
clintonius wrote:The "thwak thwak thwak" in this movie makes me think they cranked up a powerpoint slideshow of angry pictures set to the soundtrack of a furious masturbator.

User avatar
PS_Mouse
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 2:48 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby PS_Mouse » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:26 am UTC

Malice wrote:*not like Rodriguez, who is, unfortunately, a bit of a dick.

Truly? Hmm, that is disappointing. I've always through he'd be more approachable than Tarantino.

As an aside; has anyone ever noticed that whenever Tarantino appears in a film he almost always plays a rapist/creep?
I think I used to have a porpoise; then again, that might have been a dream. | Eternal life comes to those who wait
Image
Never forget how the brave Tenzing Norgay outsmarted the evil Edmund Hillary

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: Tarantino

Postby sugarhyped » Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:10 pm UTC

PS_Mouse wrote:
Malice wrote:*not like Rodriguez, who is, unfortunately, a bit of a dick.

Truly? Hmm, that is disappointing. I've always through he'd be more approachable than Tarantino.

As an aside; has anyone ever noticed that whenever Tarantino appears in a film he almost always plays a rapist/creep?

I can't recall a lot of appearances off the top of my head.
Planet Terror: yes.
In other stuff he might be weird, but I don't know about going so far as to say creep or rapist weird.
Death Proof, I don't really think so. 4 Rooms, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs also not really.
Yes for Alias on being the creep.
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

User avatar
ishikiri
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:04 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby ishikiri » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:13 pm UTC

I think PS_Mouse is specifically referring to his performance in From Dusk Till Dawn - where he plays a psychopathic rapist.

I'd say that he normally plays geeky/dorky guys - not the most difficult of parts for him.
clintonius wrote:The "thwak thwak thwak" in this movie makes me think they cranked up a powerpoint slideshow of angry pictures set to the soundtrack of a furious masturbator.

EstLladon
Beat you to the park. From RUSSIA.
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:23 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby EstLladon » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:13 am UTC

ishikiri wrote:I think PS_Mouse is specifically referring to his performance in From Dusk Till Dawn - where he plays a psychopathic rapist.

I'd say that he normally plays geeky/dorky guys - not the most difficult of parts for him.

Creeps and rapists are not that far from dorky guys...
From Russia with math.

User avatar
OOPMan
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:20 am UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Tarantino

Postby OOPMan » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:20 pm UTC

sugarhyped wrote:I just want to say I like Tarantino movies, but Kill Bill is horribly overrated.


Agreed. Personally, I'd have to say Resevoir Dogs is my favourite.

Kill Bill 1 was okay, Kill Bill 2 was awful.
Image

Image

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Tarantino

Postby Felstaff » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:25 pm UTC

Quentin Tarantino is a bad actor.

I mean, a bad actor.

Case in point:
Quentin Tarantino said, and also wrote:But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen, it's the dead nigger in my garage

Possibly the worst-delivered line in the film. Almost as bad as Tim Roth's American accent in Reservoir Dogs.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:37 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Case in point:
Quentin Tarantino said, and also wrote:But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen, it's the dead nigger in my garage

Possibly the worst-delivered line in the film. Almost as bad as Tim Roth's American accent in Reservoir Dogs.
That's it, bitch. The wedding's off.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Tarantino

Postby Felstaff » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:48 pm UTC

Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

Just look at the way he hammily points at his coffee cup. Yerk. As for Tim Roth:

Lawrence Tierney: 'Whaddaya mean ya don't tip?
Badly-accented Tim Roth: 'He don't believe in it'
Lawrence Tierney: Shaddap.

Listen to the way he says it: It's exactly like when the Genie is playing chess with Magic Carpet: 'I don't believe it, I'm losin' to a rug.'

Note for Pulp Fiction: It's great dialogue, poorly delivered by 'Q'.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:56 pm UTC

I loved Q's delivery, be cause he didn't sound like an actor. He sounded like someone that isn't terribly SHOCKED by these events (he knows these people, he knows what they do) but he's trying hard not to have a nervous breakdown. His delivery always seems very natural to me, in that he isn't afraid to be normal in front of the camera, as opposed to acting normal.

And yeah, Roth's accent sucked. He was SOOO good in Four Rooms, and that Musketeers movie where he gets the line "That's the second time this evening I've been called mad, and I'm beginning to resent it."

Mzyxptlk
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:41 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Mzyxptlk » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:48 am UTC

QT works at the same place I do. I swear! Well, either that or it's his twin brother.

As for his movies, I prefer his earlier ones, hated Kill Bill (though I'm sure that was partly because it took me 30 minutes to figure out how to turn on the subtitles), and somewhat liked Death Proof.
"Once upon a time, an infinite number of people lived perfect, blissful, eternal lives."

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby Gunfingers » Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

I'm a Tarantino fan. I watched Hero solely because he threw his name on the american version.

One thing i like is the stylistic differences in his movies. They're all gangster movies, but they're all different kinds of stories.

Reservoir Dogs was a heist movie and a whodunit. It's spent almost entirely in one building, explained through flashbacks, as the characters try to figure out what went wrong and who the rat is. And then at the end Nice Guy Eddie is shot by no one.

Pulp Fiction is...erm...a pulp fiction story. It's based on pulp comics from back in the day. Same inspiration was used for Indiana Jones, interestingly enough. As a result, while there are still murders and thievings going on, it registers completely differently to the viewer. I was taken aback a second when Nice Guy Eddie shot the cop. Not so much when Vega shot the kid in the back seat.

Jackie Brown was back to being serious, but in a different way. It's more about Jackie's schemeings and plannings. It's more proactive, i guess. The dialogue was different, too. I don't remember there being as many pop culture references as in Tarantino's other works.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a live-action anime. Except for the animated portion, where it was just anime.

Kill Bill Vol.2 retained some degree of the anime aspect, but kind of changed to a kung-fu movie and a western depending on circumstance.

Well, there's my generic and probably inaccurate breakdown of his movies that no one asked for.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Tarantino

Postby 22/7 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I loved Q's delivery, be cause he didn't sound like an actor. He sounded like someone that isn't terribly SHOCKED by these events (he knows these people, he knows what they do) but he's trying hard not to have a nervous breakdown. His delivery always seems very natural to me, in that he isn't afraid to be normal in front of the camera, as opposed to acting normal.

And yeah, Roth's accent sucked. He was SOOO good in Four Rooms, and that Musketeers movie where he gets the line "That's the second time this evening I've been called mad, and I'm beginning to resent it."

I rather agree with you, at least about his lines in Pulp Fiction. Well, that's not fair, I liked the lines you've talked about here, I'm not a big fan of his lines when sitting on the bed with Winston where Winston is explaining that they need his linens. That felt very... acting normal to me.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby segmentation fault » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:51 pm UTC

OOPMan wrote:Kill Bill 2 was awful.


wow. kill bill 2 is probably one of my favorite movies, and so much better than 1. i really cant see why its getting so much flak here.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Malice » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:04 am UTC

Gunfingers wrote:Kill Bill Vol. 1 was a live-action anime. Except for the animated portion, where it was just anime.

Kill Bill Vol.2 retained some degree of the anime aspect, but kind of changed to a kung-fu movie and a western depending on circumstance.


By the way, they're not all gangster films. Ignoring the ones he didn't have total control over, the one unequivocal exception is Death Proof.

Kill Bill as a whole is also, let's not forget, a revenge film, as well as a reworking of Charlie's Angels. Volume one is more clearly a samurai movie than an anime (content-wise, anime is too broad to be considered a genre; and I'm not sure I agree that volume one uses significant amounts of anime style, either).

One thing that's really interesting about the Kill Bill movies is how much of an experimentation in split narrative they are. Volume One has all the action and character change based around an incident which is essentially a pretext, while Volume Two is mostly character development and the explication (and resolution) of the conflicts which led to and resulted from that incident.

Think about the difference there. V2 explains the conflict; V1 expresses it physically. V2 reveals the characters, who remain essentially static throughout the film; V1 shows people we don't know going through their (brief) arcs. (I identify the character arcs in the Kill Bill to be: The Bride wakes up, realizes what's happened, and decides to kill the man she used to love; in reaction, everybody renews their determination to kill her. All this happens in V1; V2 explains why they made these choices, and what happened as a result.) In fact, in V1, you know next to nothing about the important characters (you don't even know the Bride's name, and you basically only know that most people think Bill is a dick; whereas you get O-Ren's entire life story in one long expository bit). In V2, you get everything. In V2, nobody actually changes--at the beginning, the Bride intends to kill Bill, and by the end she's done it. In fact, QT has to jump through quite a few hoops in order to avoid major anticlimax.

Even if you imagine they're one long film, it's pretty astonishing to realize what he did. In a normal movie, most of the movie would be reversed--first set-up (Bill tried to kill the Bride, for such and such reasons), then payoff (the Bride is pissed, and stabs like 88 people). Yet I feel it would be much less powerful this way. Volume 1 benefits in two different ways--first, the lack of depth makes Tarantino's iconic images and ideas (the killer in a wedding dress, the woman resurrected in order to get revenge, etc.) much more powerful, and secondly, the mystery draws you into the story. You're literally dropped into the middle of things, wondering who the hell are all these people, and what's going on, and why are they all trying to kill each other. You're piecing the story together from bits of exposition, lines of dialogue, the way people behave and react to each other; and it sucks you right in.

The second half, on the other hand, gains greater depth from the weight of "history" based on what we've already seen. When Bill and the Bride discuss their emotional problems, that discussion gets extra importance because it refers us back to the violence we saw in V1. Normally, the emotional problems would make us care more about the action; here, the action makes us care more about the emotional problems, because more is (or was) at stake. The events of V1 also establish a mythos (or, if you prefer, simply an expectation) for V2--we now know what it means when Bill tells Budd, the Bride is coming to town, watch out. We spend most of that movie assuming that, at any moment, the Bride is going to boil over with rage and go postal on another 60 anonymous henchman. It never really happens, and QT delights in subverting our expectations. The extended sequence with Budd getting shit on at work is a version of the classic comedic intercut between a rushing train and a rabbit on the tracks. The train is huge and loud and coming closer! The rabbit is doomed! In this case, QT leads us to assume that Budd is out of practice, out of his league, about as far from the jet-setting assassin as one could get, and therefore a supremely easy target for the woman who took down an entire Yakuza army. Then, BAM--subversion. The same thing happens at the end, where instead of a huge fight, we get a long, deep conversation, followed by a brief, utterly minor conflict.

So by reversing the conventional levels of depth in action movies (powerful set-up makes for exciting action changes to, exciting action makes for powerful climax), QT creates an extremely brilliant and effective picture, driven first by spectacle and set-pieces, and then by suspense and emotion.

And of course I've only scratched the surface. In the end that's what I like about QT the most--he manages to do very cool artistic things that you don't notice under the entertaining, populist surface. Each of Tarantino's movies is like a brilliantly designed Swiss clock, only at the top of every hour the clock gives you a blow-job.
Image

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Tarantino

Postby Jesse » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:23 am UTC

And the blow job is made of kittens.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Tarantino

Postby cephalopod9 » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:22 am UTC

There was entirely too little internal consistency in either film to allow me to appreciate the story telling. I mean, it's one thing to be over the top and ridiculous, but it's another to try and tell a serious story while using over the topness as an excuse to leave a million little plot holes. Maybe I should suspend my belief a little higher, but it's difficult to invest in characters and story within a universe that lacks internal consistency.

There's also my being female and straight (can't say as I've ever had a blowjob), and it's more than a little off putting that the cast is half a dozen under-wear-model-physiqued women, two old guys, and some other guys that get hacked up. To say nothing of the protaganist abandoning all accomplishments, talents, and other comitments because she happens to get pregnant.
Image

User avatar
Libertine
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere they'll never find me.

Re: Tarantino

Postby Libertine » Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:08 am UTC

I pretty much hate what I've seen of Tarantino's movies. It's just not my style. He uses violence in lieu of a plot, which bores me. I don't see the appeal of movies like Grindhouse. I could tolerate Reservoir Dogs. I saw Kill Bill 1. I'd already seen Lady Snowblood in the original Japanese. I did not like it any better the second time around. If I hate the main characters I'm not going to care about them enough to be interested in the movie.
"Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society." - Wikipedia

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Tarantino

Postby 22/7 » Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:There's also my being female and straight (can't say as I've ever had a blowjob), and it's more than a little off putting that the cast is half a dozen under-wear-model-physiqued women, two old guys, and some other guys that get hacked up. To say nothing of the protaganist abandoning all accomplishments, talents, and other comitments because she happens to get pregnant.

It's been awhile since I've seen these films, so I'm pretty rusty here, but I was under the impression that she drops everything because she falls in love and doesn't want her new husband/eventual child to be exposed to that lifestyle?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests