9 is pretty much how it looks. The story is good (apocalyptic), but the plot is pretty linear throughout (their objective stated in the commercial). It's not happy-go-lucky and not gruesome— that Tim Burton style. I pretty much liked the imagination, but I guess it wouldn't be worth watching for those who are more into realism and intricate plots.

Falling Down: Started out really good, but the ending was a bit disappointing.
The Detonator: Wasn't particulary good. Pretty standard action movie.
Beverly Hills Cop 1 and 2: Brilliant movies. Got all three on VHS (yay!). I lol'd pretty hard while watching these, especially as I was home alone.
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time: Watched this on an anime gathering at the university yesterday. A bit sad, but it has it's funny moments.

Watched the Hurt Locker yesterday. It was a dissapointment: most of the movie was inconsistent and lacked dynamic elements. Some of the scenes were awfully directed and shot, not allowing the OK actors to show what they have in mind for their characters. Some of the dialogue was absolutely terrible (with his psychoanalyst especially). The plot lacked integrity and repeated the same stuff over and over, just more extreme; all it revealed about the character was his self-destructive, close-to-death adrenalne addiction 'spiced up' with a bit of compassion for people around him. The best part of the movie for me was the ending, because it shows the character's emotions and inability to live a 'normal' life.

I typed that quite good, considering the fact that I'm drunk. ( )

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2009, 12:52 pm by JaFF.

What's the problem with Tarantino? You didn't like Pulp Fiction?

Eh where to start. I'd say my biggest problem with Tarantino is Tarantino, and then secondly his style. I'm not a fan of huge egos in this industry, and he quite possibly has the largest (which I'm not alone in knowing). I hate that he helps release foreign films in America and puts a huge "Presented by Quentin Tarantino" on it so that people assume he actually worked on the film (i.e. Hero, The Protector). I don't like that he does audio commentaries for movies he had no influence on (i.e. Hot Fuzz, Switchblade Sisters). I really really dislike how he puts "The Xth Film by Tarantino" in his ads as if he is flawless (lol Jackie Brown anyone?). I'm really tired of the overused "Chapter #" crutch he uses. And lastly, I think his music choices in his movies are now just more silly than good.

Then on to his films:
I did like Pulp Fiction, but I also like the movies he "borrowed from" to make Pulp Fiction. I feel like because most people have only seen Pulp Fiction and not the films that inspired it, Pulp Fiction then becomes this beaming work of originality when really it's just okay. I will admit that at the time I felt like he deservedly became known for his exception written dialog in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, but I have been less than impressed since then. I think this is also when I realized his editor, Sally Menke, was great and since then blindly believe that she is the reason that the structure of his films are so highly regarded.

It's been a while since I've seen Jackie Brown, so I don't remember much. I do remember being unimpressed, and felt like with such a good cast, it was a shame to see them in a less than spectacular film.

Kill Bill. I liked volume 1 when I saw it in theaters, and didn't care for volume 2. Upon seeing the first again much later, I didn't feel the same joy as the first time. I think this is about the time that I realized the amazing Tarantino dialog that everyone has come to love really isn't that amazing. Listening to his characters talk seems forced and unnatural. Like I said above, I dislike the "chapter" crutch and felt like it was really unnecessary (and abundantly overused). The films could have easily been turned into one film, and that one film could have been great. This might have also been the time I started wondering why he chose certain music for his scores. I think having the RZA do a score is great, but some of the song choices just seemed like they were inserted because it would be unexpected and cool.

Of the two Grindhouse films, I thought Tarantino's was weaker. Death Proof had the same dialog and music issues I have with his other work. I wanted all the characters to die in that film, and felt utmost sympathy for the psychopathic motive-less killer. I've noticed Tarantino likes his scenes to be extra long, and this is no exception (i.e. the lapdance scene that seemed to go on forever). I get that he's mocking the genre of the same name as the film(s), but they were supposed to be basically bad action films with sex appeal and very little style. This, I felt, was overly-stylized - but that should be expected.

Onward to Inglourious Basterds! I liked this film a great deal more than Death Proof, Jackie Brown, and the Kill Bills. I think that he has gotten back on track dialog-wise and I was very impressed with that. I like to attribute this more to the fact that he started writing this almost a decade ago and has used the time to work on it. I think it's funny that this isn't exactly a remake of "Inglorious Bastards," but it's extremely similar in it's "kicking ass behind enemy lines" ideals. I liked his characters quite a bit, and thought his casting was impeccable (except for Mike Myers, who I could not stop laughing at when he was on screen). I again hate the "chapter" thing in this, though, and almost see it as if Tarantino had no idea how to go from one act to another seamlessly. I guess as with most of his films with way too many characters, I didn't care much for most of them. Landa was insane, and wonderfully done. Aldo Raine was equally insane, but in a quieter sense. I couldn't care less about the girl who runs the theater or her boyfriend. I didn't care for the Brits, the actress, the sniper, or Goebbels/Hitler. And as usual I felt it was too long (where were you on that one, Sally Menke?!).

So in all I liked Reservoir Dogs quite a bit. I thought Inglourious Basterds and Pulp Fiction were okay. I wasn't a fan of Kill Bill 1 or 2. I didn't like Jackie Brown. And I really don't like Quentin Tarantino.

I think your analysis is kind of ridiculous. As well as sparse and surface level.


You're terribly uninformed. He wanted it to be one film, but that idea was shot down as one film somewhere along the line. It would have been... what, 3 and a half hours?

Also, could you care to actually explain why you don't like the chapters? Aside from just calling it a 'crutch' because you deem it so? It's merely a division of different parts of the film... with a title... not much more... it really shouldn't have much of an effect on what you think of the movie as a whole. Do you dislike books when the chapters don't suit you well? Or would you rather they not have them at all?

Whether you - or anyone for that matter - thinks it's ridiculous or not, I'll still feel this way. I'm not trying to offend you with my dislike of Tarantino. I know why people like him, and I'm fine with that. I didn't go into great detail because at the core, I'm in the extreme minority in how I feel here and I know that no matter what I say I'll be deemed "ridiculous." Go ahead and disregard the "sparse and surface level" critique, and just get that I hate his arrogance and I feel like it oozes out into his films.

I didn't realize the Kill Bill thing. I seem to remember him talking about wanting it as a two-part epic in some interview, but Wikipedia tells me otherwise. I guess Tarantino was right to want it in one part (though I still think having it cut down would help). It probably would have been 4 hours, which is why I said cutting it shorter would have been good.

As for the chapters, I feel like he overuses it (which is why I call it a crutch). I think he has come to rely on that feature in his films. Books are meant to be divided into chapters, films are meant to be divided into acts (normally 3). As I said in my previous post, I "see it as if Tarantino had no idea how to go from one act to another seamlessly." Maybe it bothers me because when I see a chapter slate come up, I'm reminded of his other films and the one I'm watching ceases to be unique. Maybe it's because I become conscious of what I'm watching on screen and that sort of kills the experience for me. I'm really not sure how to describe it, I just really don't like it. I don't think I would have minded so much if he only did it in one film.

How often do you see this outside of his films? I mean really, the more I think about it, I don't see anyone else cutting to a black slate with white text after a scene in a film. Most people get from one act to another without needing to tell the audience that we are going to be watching other people now. Eh, I dunno, it just bothers me.

Understandable. The chapters don't bother me though. And he might be a little full of himself, but so are lost of directors.

I just saw Inglorious Bastards, and I must say, it was one or the worst Tarintino movies I've seen. Not saying it was a bad movie, but compared to Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, it fell short.

How boring it would be if people just decided that you can't include other arts in films, that a film is just a sequence of images in which you cannot include sounds, comic scenes or other characteristics of other arts like chapters from writing or buildings from architecture.
Or that if people thought that music was only meant to be in a closed room full of people that can afford it, playing the piano or in an opera with a guy directing a whole orchestra.
Wouldn't it be boring if Alexander Calder hadn't say "Hey, why do sculptures have to be static at all? Let's make sculptures move!" or if Howard Hughes didn't have the vision of a bus airplane to carry people across the atlantic.
It would definitely be boring if some guys in the beggining of the XX century hadn't changed the perception of the world and had just kept doing the same art as of always.

You see, Devlin, the point about any form of art is that you're free to do whatever you wish, there are no rules on how to do it there's nothing saying that a film is just attached to the 3 act structure, plus that's not even in films that's actually on theatrical plays, duh, but overall if someone doesn't change the ordinary things don't change all by themselves.

I work in the industry, no need to lecture me on films or art.

The way he is making films isn't that original, though, so I don't see him as being a pioneer in changing the way films are made. I get what you're saying, but I don't think that argument really deals with what I was getting at. And again, I just don't like him or his work. Seriously, nothing we argue about will change that so let's just leave it at that.

Let's keep in mind all art is subjective and no artist (or piece of art) is universally loved or hated. If I hate Tarantino, I'm free to do so.

Really? You don't seem so, seing that a few of your comments seem pretty much straight foward and a bit closed minded regarding to new things.

<sub>I Love You, Man.

just saw it for the first time, kickass.

i love you, bromontana.</sub>

I saw this when it came out and just loved it. I just bought the DVD last week and the special features are equally hilarious. Great comedy!

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 21 2009, 7:28 am by DevliN. Reason: Removed response to Corbo.

You're not the only person who dislikes Tarantino, Devlin. I don't like the man or his works. I don't know if I just don't 'get' him, or if his films are genuinely dull, repetitive and far too long. Perhaps the things which others rave about in his films are just things I dislike.

I haven't seen any new films recently. Been watching a lot from the Golden Era of Hollywood though, especially Hitchcock. Now there's a director I can appreciate.

Hitchcock is definitely incredible. I'm really glad Hollywood hasn't attempted to remake his classics (aside from Psycho). They may come off as dated now, but the suspense still holds up.

Its more than one Episode... O.o

I haven't really seen any new movies but I really like American Gangster, A Beautiful Mind, Pulp Fiction and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas (The cinematography is amazing in this movie)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 23 2009, 8:00 pm by Kyrax.

Yeah, I think it's 12 episodes, though only 10 aired or something.

On Tarantino: I liked Pulp Fiction for Samuel L. Jackson. That last scene was great. The rest of the movie, not so much. Deathproof was a horrendously shitty movie. Oh dear God, why did I watch that? Amen to Devlin on the lapdance that wouldn't end. Tarantino's vaunted dialogue is especially annoying in this movie. And then about an hour of buildup before the first car scene, and that was stupid. And the second scene stretched on for too long and made no sense. At one point theres a small lake between them, so the psychopath can run away. But he continues to drive to the part where the two roads meet back up. And then they beat him up for about two minutes straight in what must be the cheesiest fight scene (if you can call it that) I've ever seen. Piece of shit movie that was.

Anyway, I saw Cashback recently. I thought it was pretty good, a little funny. Also, BOOBIES!!!!!!!! School's got me busy so I haven't been able to watch much lately.