Four Rooms was trash except for Tim Roth and Tarrantino's bit. Those are the only reasons I would watch that again.I agree, still felt it should be mentioned though.
Well guess whats in production now? You guessed it. The two most popular characters from his most popular movies, are getting together in a movie called THE VEGA BROTHERS.Heard that one myself, and am looking forwards to it. As far as i´ve heard, it´s going to take place before Madsen goes to jail, which could mean that it´s going to be a movie taking place in the late 70íes. Taking Tarantinos fascination with the 70ies into consideration i think it´s going to look like the new Starský and Hutch Without the "fun" parts. (of course tarantinos movies are always fun in that twisted violent kinda way ;D) but i think you get the idea.
I haven't seen True Romance, but I have heard some good things about it. Perhaps oneday I'll check it out.
You really warm to the protagonists.Can you do naything but like slater when he´s talking to THE KING ;D
I have to ask about the violence. You know, the blood spurting as it does. Was there a reason for this? Anybody know? Honestly, I saw very similar violence just a few weeks ago when I watched Freddy Vs. Jason. Was it for humor? Are we supposed to laugh?
I think he uses the techniques like the blood hoses that shower the room with a spray of blood when a limb is cut off to actually tone down the violence. It makes it less real, and ultimately less gruesome because it's so obviously just special effects.
I found a lot of humor in Kill Bill Vol 1, and at the same thought the action sequences where fantastic. Lucy Liu... what can you say? She and Uma were out of this world... damn. I think Lucy only raises her voice twice in the film, and the first time, at the table with the other crime bosses (trying not to reveal a spoiler here, if you've seen it, you remember the scene) man... when she raised her voice there I just was stunned by how good she was.
I just saw this film for the first time tonight and really enjoyed it. I haven't seen Pulp Fiction since it first came out, so I don't remember it enough to compare. Same with From Dusk to Dawn. I have seen Reservoir Dogs fairly recently and I really enjoyed that. But I'd give Kill Bill a slight edge only because when it was over... I felt good... energized. It was a fun experience. Reservoir Dogs, while I enjoyed every minute of it and thought the acting was out of this world... just left me feeling slightly deflated in the end. So, I have to give KB the higher mark just because I liked the way I felt after watching it... not necessarily because it was a better film.
Vol. 2 has more depth and character development, so it's a slower-paced film in comparison. Put the two together however, and you have one amazing film...That actually gives me more hope that I might like Volume 2 more. ;) You're probably right, the movie would have probably worked best as one whole film, not broken up in two parts.
The violence didn't offend me by any means. I didn't feel anything for it, and that's why I asked. I felt no energy or repulsion for it.
Had it felt more real, and I'd felt repulsed by it, chances are I would have liked it a bit more.
Christopher, if we agreed on a film more than once every couple of years, I'd have to rethink my evaluation of it. ;)I thought that myself! ;D You knew deep down that you'd like it when you saw I didn't care much for it, didn't you? ;) ;D
I thought that myself! ;D You knew deep down that you'd like it when you saw I didn't care much for it, didn't you? ;) ;D
I love the Hopper and Walken scene, did any of you find this racist though ? I didn't, but what do the rest of you think ?I dont think it racist per see, hopper use the word deliberatly to piss of Walken, not to offend black people directly. In the quote
and your great-great-great-grandmother f*cked a n*gger, and she had a half-*ggerkidhe clearly associate walkens character with blacks no matter how pale he is, thus spitting him in the face while being tortured. He caps it off after asking vincent concotti (walkens character) if he´s lying,(which concotti agrees that he dont.)by telling him that he is half eggplant.
i´m quoting historyYou cant really say anything about that... ;)
I just watched Reservoir Dogs. I liked it. Very interesting film. It has a nice pace to it as well, it didn't feel like I spent an hour and forty minutes with it.
I remember going to see Jackie Brown in theatres and found to be extremely boring and disapointing. I have since re-watched it and enjoyed it a bit more, but it still doesn't compare to Pulp or Dogs.Now it's "Ick. Boring." ???
I know my brother has recently seen both of these movies, though I don't know what he thought of Volume 2 yet... only my brother said he felt Volume 1 was...(shall I even say it amongst such fans on this board? :P)...boring ( :o).
(I don't think I'm spoiling anything but look away if you must) when Bill and Beatrice are talking. Damn that just goes on for so long. And it's also slightly anti-climactic...
Jackie Brown... ick. BORING. That about sums it up.And I completely agree with that.
One of the DVD reviewers over at IGN.com didn't like Volume 1 either and he got quite the load of hate mail for it. I don't see how Volume 1 could be boring, but I can understand why people wouldn't like it because of the violence.I don't think I've heard anybody say they didn't like it because of the violence. ??? The whole film is just fight scenes. It doesn't take the characters into consideration (I'm sure that's much like the kung fu movies being paid homage to). This led me to believe it would be a normal revenge movie (and not a great one at that). But Volume 2 complicates that a bit. Makes it a little more. I appreciated the style much more in 2 as well. I could feel the excitement in the fight scenes because I knew a little more about these people.
The time flew by while I watched it, I was so engrossed in the movie. And I like the finale, I like its understatement. And mostly I liked its emotional impact.
Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak. He's unsure of himself. He's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.Wow. Never thought of it that way. :o
But, does anyone know why Quentin Tarantino used different first names for this actor (Michael Parks)?
(http://img90.exs.cx/img90/2600/Parks1.jpg)
BLACK SUITS: In RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION, and even FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, all of the alpha male lead aggressive people wear black suits.
So in other words...ALL THESE MOVIES tie together.
Elle Driver wears the same outfit that Uma Thurman wears in Pulp Fiction (1994). It was also worn by Pam Grier in Jackie Brown (1997).
But Hero isn't that good either.
I guess I'm just a big fan of his.
Quentin Tarantino, hands down..is going to go down as one of the best movie writers/directors of all time. He has vision that can only be summed up as genius.
Jackie Brown has a smart story that entertained me through every frame of the film and, once again, was filled with outstanding performances--one of my favorites was the subtle and sensitive performance by Robert Forster, and on the other end of the spectrum, the dynamic performance of Samuel L. Jackson.
Interesting insights, Matt. You got it right about Jackie Brown, but here is why it's my favorite of his movies: Pulp Fiction loses something with each viewing, but Jackie Brown gains something (for me) on each viewing. To paraphrase Tarantino, he wanted this to be the movie you watched over and over just to enjoy the characters. The first time you concentrate on the plot, but after that you go back to it just for the characters. It's not a better movie than Pulp Fiction, but I enjoy rewatching it way, way more, and it wasn't until I'd rewatched it a couple of times that it became my favorite of his.
Even though he didn't direct it, I also highly recommend True Romance, if you haven't already seen it.
Death (and violence) is treated so lightly in the movie, but yet we're allowed to see these people as real -- unlike, say, Where Eagles Dare which certainly has a lot higher body count. I think many people who have no trouble watching an action movie where dozens of people are shot to hell would and have squirmed when seeing this movie.
BUT the real genius is that Tarantino never went too far in humanizing the victims, so in the end we can still appreciate the movie as fun entertainment.
It's a delicate line he balanced on there.
Even though he didn't direct it, I also highly recommend True Romance, if you haven't already seen it.
If I was going to get any of the others, they'd be Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill Vol. 2 (yeah, I'd get it without getting Volume 1 ;)).
That would be like only owning half the film. Actually, that's exactly what it is.Very true, which is probably why I won't get either of them. Of course it's necessary to watch Volume 1 before 2, but like I mentioned previously (which Doug had mentioned before me) that 2 has the feel of a whole different film.
I heard about it a few days ago on the radio, but they were saying that Tarantino had said that the story was completely made up.Seemed to be the same infomation here (minus the reports of him saying he was interested in doing a horror).
Everyone mark this down on your calenders though... the CSI season finale will be written and directed by Tarrantino. ;)
A date would help me to mark it on my calendar. (http://home.swfla.rr.com/mattreigns/boardwink.gif)
Are you fair dinkum.Tarantino doing T.V. work seems like a come down ???He's written and directed CSI before, in 2000 (episode 5.23), and directed ER in 1994 (episode Motherhood).
He's written and directed CSI before, in 2000 (episode 5.23),...
I got that from his IMDb entry (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000233/).
Tarantino bloodying 'CSI' team
Feb. 24, 2005
By Nellie Andreeva and Borys Kit
Call it "Kill Gil."
Quentin Tarantino has signed to direct the season-finale episode of primetime's most-watched series, CBS' "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." Tarantino also has come up with an original story for the episode, which is expected to shoot in early April and air May 19, according to "CSI" executive producer Carol Mendelsohn.
Tarantino has long been a fan of the stylish forensic drama as series creator/executive producer Anthony Zuiker learned when he bumped into Tarantino at an awards show during "CSI's" first season. They have pursued him to direct an episode for some time, and after members of the "CSI" crew ran into Tarantino a few weeks ago while the show was doing some location shooting in Las Vegas, the stars finally aligned for him to helm the show's fifth-season closer, Mendelsohn said.
"He knows everything there is to know about 'CSI,' and he is into the whole mythology of 'CSI,' " Mendelsohn said. "Quentin came in a couple of weeks ago. We had a story meeting with the writers. He had a great idea, and it was so much fun to have him in the room. ... We are positively giddy."
Zuiker, in particular, "worships Quentin," she added.
Mendelsohn said the story will involve a plot that finds one of the key members of the CSI team, led by Gil Grissom (William Petersen), in serious jeopardy. The teleplay will be penned by Mendelsohn, Zuiker and Naren Shankar.
"There will be more bugs and blood this time," Mendelsohn joked.
Tarantino, who earned an Oscar for co-writing the screenplay to his 1994 smash "Pulp Fiction," directed a 1995 episode of "ER" and appeared as a guest actor on ABC's "Alias" in 2002 and last year. His other features include the "Kill Bill" films, "Jackie Brown" and "Reservoir Dogs."
Gots to correct you Lilly... the show premiered in 2000, which is what that year there means, and episode 5.23 (season 5, episode 23) is the season finale for CSI's current season. ;) So that's just the listing for the episode he is going to direct.
Quentin Tarantino is currently working on his new film: Inglorious Bastards.
http://www.everythingtarantino.com/inglorious_bastards/
tgy. it is supposed to be one whole film, do yourself a favour and see vol2 while one is still fresh in the mind. it makes more sense then.
Please give a spoiler notice if you did see it,as here in Australia it probably won't be shown for months.Thanks. O0
Although we are getting it in two parts and will have to wait another week for part 2. >:(
Loved the black and white sequence -Nick's autopsy scene. Black Humor. So funny. So Tarantino :D
The season finale rocked. You'll love it, tgy 8)
The whole cast delivered great performances, especially Gary Dourdan and George Eads.
Another cool CSI episode.
*SPOILER* Tgy, don't read the following, because it's in the second episode.*
:D
just like this see
Those of us on the Mocha color scheme can see it though. ;)
We're finally going to see the second part of CSI directed by Tarantino this Sunday in Australia.I hope all this waiting is going to be worth it. >:(
I loathe Quentin Tarantino movies, Matt. They are way too gory and pretentious for their own good. They're also really exploitative.
You know what's funny Matt? You know what REALLY makes me sick to my stomach? I don't know how your taste in movies can be so flawed! You like Clint Eastwood movies, so you're obviously a good judge of what makes a solid film, but you also like Quentin Tarantino, and even worse, Adam Sandler movies. I just can't figure you out! ;)
It finally happened... I didn't like a Quentin Tarantino movie. It's surprising because I didn't just like all his previous movies, I LOVED them. But The Hateful Eight was over-long, wordier than it should have been, and almost boring -- then the gruesomeness of it was too much. The thing is, Tarantino is known for all of those things -- long, talky, gruesome, but never boring. Quentin needs to find himself a more talented editor to replace Sally Menke, who died after Inglorious Basterds. Django Unchained was great, but I remember watching it and thinking of how much tighter and better it could have been if Sally worked on it. But The Hateful Eight is in another league. No one is holding Tarantino back, and the man needs to be held back a bit.
This was a major disappointment. I'd been looking forward to it, and almost got to the theater for it, but things kept getting in the way. I don't think I could have sat in a theater seat and watched that straight through. Thumbs down on this one.
And nobody.... I MEAN NOBODY... puts ketchup on a hot dog. ;)
Better than putting flippin' cheese whiz on a Philly cheese steak. :D That should be a crime. (Sorry, I just recently learned that was a real thing. How could anybody...?)
I mostly agree with you, I felt the movie was flat and self-indulgent. But I will say the two hours and forty minute runtime didn't feel long at all. I liked it better than Django Unchained, which I thought was a mess, and I could barely pay attention to it on a second viewing. I haven't tried giving The Hateful Eight a second viewing.
You do know Eastwood supported Pulp Fiction when he was on the jury at Cannes when it premiered, right?
On the jury here when 'Pulp Fiction' won, somebody said 'Oh, Clint Eastwood was on the jury, so he voted for the American film.' But my sensibilities are European, here is where my success started. Actually, Zhang Yimou's 'To Live' was my favorite piece, but most of the European jurors seemed to like 'Pulp Fiction,"' he said.
Nonetheless, AKA, he was president of the jury. ::) Possibly the only other film from that year I've seen is Three Colors: Red, and it's a great film. I've not seen To Live.
In my opinion, your statement was inaccurate so I am just correcting the record. Clint did not support "Pulp Fiction" at Cannes, and from his comments, it sounds like he didn't even like it that much since he said "The Europeans seemed to like it" rather than that he thought it was a strong movie. Although it is possible that he may enjoy Tarantino movies, I am skeptical that he does since Clint doesn't make gratuitously violent movies and his style is subdued. Tarantino makes very flashy movies that are extremely violent, so for that reason, I doubt Clint is a big fan of Quentin Tarantino. A lot of people love his movies though, and that's all right with me. I was just giving Matt a little jazz since we are friends. Everyone has different tastes. That's what makes this board interesting.
But honestly, most of the time I'd just rather check out the original movies that he's paying homage to. ;)
I remember writing on here about how uninteresting Kill Bill Vol 1 was to me, and how the violence in that movie didn't make me feel anything. The violence was... boring.
I just watched Jackie Brown again, and I moved it up a few notches. Really great movie.
Well, since you are such a big fan, what purpose do you think the extreme violence serves? If the movie had half as much blood spirting everywhere and limbs being chopped off, and it had the same basic storyline and production values, wouldn't you enjoy it just as much? Or, am I wrong? Does he really need to go that far?
After rewatching all of these films again, here's how I'm ranking them today:
1. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Kill Bill (Vol 1 & 2)
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. Jackie Brown
7. Django Unchained
8. The Hateful Eight
9. Death Proof
Whoa, really? I have to say I'm looking forward to this movie more than just about any movie this century, but I will have to wait until the blu-ray comes out. I just can't see setting aside four hours for it (factoring in drive time and all).
Also, like you, Matt, I don't rank his last two westerns very highly. I liked The Hateful Eight more than Django Unchained, but even it felt too much like Tarantino trying to out-Tarantino himself. Inglourious Basterds was great though and I've seen it many times. Still, Jackie Brown is my favorite.
And where would you rank True Romance? I still rank that way up there.
Also, Tony Scott directed "True Romance," not Quentin Tarantino, so it's not really a "Quentin Tarantino" film. He just wrote it. I think the director has a much stronger influence over the end product than the screenwriter does. The thing I remember most about it was the somewhat whimsical, quite memorable score by Hans Zimmer.
Tarantino Steals From Other Movies (https://www.facebook.com/insider/videos/362569287734426/UzpfSTEwMDAwMTM4ODIzNjE1OTpWSzoyODI0NDg2ODk0MjUxOTEy/?query=Quentin%20Tarantino&epa=SEARCH_BOX) :o :o :o
May I ask AKA... If you don't like violence in films how did you ever get into Clint Eastwood ? ;)
Gant, this is a good and fair question. I think for me, the violence in Clint's films first of all always served the story. It was not the defining feature of the film. Clint always played character driven characters and directed character driven stories. His movies were never about the spectacle of filmmaking or how far he could push the envelope before he went too far. Quentin Tarantino's movie are all about the spectacle to me. The story is only there to serve the style which underpins them. It's a vehicle for the indulgence of Tarantino's revenge fantasy obsession. Tarantino's films are self-indulgent. Clint's films aren't. Tarantino continues to direct movies that thematically center on revenge fantasies. I'd love to be his psychiatrist, so that I could learn why. In addition, the level of violence in Tarantino's films is oppressive to me. I can't think of a single Clint Eastwood film that you could objectively say that about.AKA, I think this is a brilliant post. You put your finger right on the difference between Tarantino and Eastwood. I've never heard anyone express that so well.
Secondly, the nature of the violence is much tamer in even Clint's most violent film than it is in Quentin Tarantino's tamest movie. Quentin Tarantino's movies have a level of blood and gore and gratuitously styled violence that Clint never had in his films. There is simply no comparison whatsoever, in my opinion, between Clint and Quentin Tarantino. I also feel like Quentin Tarantino often exploits historical events in very crude ways ways that serve as a vehicle for his overly stylized, gratuitously violent films. I don't think you can say the same about Clint. To me, they are very different directors and filmmakers. I agree that Tarantino is a talented director. I just wish that he used those talents in a different way. His films celebrate, glorify, and trivialize the very worst of human nature to me. Clint never reveled in man's darkest impulses. He reflected upon them, he may have sometimes depicted them, but he never took any glee in doing so. Quentin Tarantino does, and to me, that's disturbing.
Very well answered AKA.. I was kinda kidding but your response has made me think about the comparisons.
When I was young Clints films were often thought of as extremely violent and were almost always R rated. Sudden Impact etc..
I'm gonna dwell on this comparison some more..
Just as a side thought... Did Clint vote for Pulp Fiction at Cannes some years back ?
Matt, may I ask what it is about Ounce Upon a Time in Hollywood that you like so much? I did get to see it and I'm just not getting the love. So it's a love letter to 1969 Hollywood, but what else is it? It spends over 2 hours on character development leading up to the climatic scene that frankly feels really silly. I did like it, but it feels like Tarantino threw out all sense of conventional pacing, and there's zero plot, and really not much of a story. I'll watch it again and maybe it'll click with me on a second viewing.
And mixed in with all that drama and heaviness as we head toward the night of the killings, we have some hilarious scenes. My favorite is the Bruce Lee fight scene with Cliff. "Let me just say, nobody beat the $#!t out of Bruce." This was laugh-out-loud funny, and another scene where those who are familiar with the real people being portrayed in the film get paid off in spades, because he was dead-on as Bruce Lee.
Sorry for the rant, but the scene has continued to anger me.
Wow, there's an alternative Universe plot... Imagine if Bruce Lee had stayed that night. Would he have made a difference to the outcome, along with Steve McQueen who was supposedly invited over ?
I'm a fan of Bruce Lee, and I thought it was a hysterical scene. But, I can see your point about the character acting like a little punk in the fight scene with Cliff. But, since he really was a bit of a braggart and cocky as hell, it didn't seem so outlandish a portrayal to me.
Wow, there's an alternative Universe plot... Imagine if Bruce Lee had stayed that night. Would he have made a difference to the outcome, along with Steve McQueen who was supposedly invited over ?