Tarentino Anyone?

[Alex]

No, not Inglorious Bastards or anything in his later work that where his ego got to big. I'm talking about Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill. I like Kill Bill for paying tribute to the Hong Kong movies, I don't consider it genious or innovative like Reservoir or Pulp Fiction.

 

I like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction because you FORGOT you were watching a movie. It was realistic! I felt like I was there! The link between the film and the audience was so strong that you were at the edge of your seat. Not to mention the acting was amazing. Mike Madsen scared the crap out of me with his famous scene.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wnlK2nRKdk&feature=related

Edited May 15, 2010 by Alex

[rushgoober]

highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc.

 

[Alex]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM)

highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc.

You bastard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, have you seen Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction?

 

I'm not talking about his later career crap where he went over the top for the sake of going over the top.

 

Reservoir Dogs is in no way "too violent"

[Alex]

And you can't discredit the man for his good taste in music.

 

As featured in R.D.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1e63MpTDt8&fmt=18

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   I have seen Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. My original assessment fits those movies perfectly IMHO. I've seen enough of his movies and parts of others that I know I don't ever want to watch anything by him again.

Edited May 15, 2010 by rushgoober

[Slaine mac Roth]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:07 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   I have seen Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction My original assessment fits those movies perfectly IMHO. I've seen enough of his movies and parts of others that I know I don't ever want to watch anything by him again. I'm glad I'm not the only person with this view of Tarantino.   While I will conceed that Resevoir Dogs was a reasonably gripping film, I don't count it as one of my favourites. Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, I felt was one of the most pretentious and incoherent couple of hours comitted to celuloid.   However, perhaps the most annoying thing I find about Tarantino is the sycophantic attitude his devotees display towards him.   Give me Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock any day of the week - they really knew how to make a film

[Alex]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion...

Edited May 15, 2010 by rushgoober

[Alex]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Alex

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious.

Edited May 15, 2010 by rushgoober

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I'm surprised, since you're not a fan of Tarantino, that you're making such an effort in this thread Gary. You have already made these points several times, in several threads already. Why are you so eager to repeat yourself by making them over and over again, is what I'm wondering?

[Presto-digitation]

I like all the movies he did which weren't collaborative efforts...just HIS films. All of them.

[Xanadoood]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I always felt the violence in Goodfellas was more over the top than in Resorvoir Dogs...how bout the scne where Ray Liotta smashes the shit out of that kids face with the gun?..How did that serve the story?...The ear cutting scene was there to set up Mr. Blonde being killed, and therefore outing who the rat was. And it really isnt even that brutal of a scene.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 15 2010, 03:55 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I always felt the violence in Goodfellas was more over the top than in Resorvoir Dogs...how bout the scne where Ray Liotta smashes the shit out of that kids face with the gun?..How did that serve the story?...The ear cutting scene was there to set up Mr. Blonde being killed, and therefore outing who the rat was. And it really isnt even that brutal of a scene. First of all, Goodfellas is ten times better a film than Reservoir Dogs.   It showed that even though his character could come off as a somewhat nice and reasonable guy (for a gangster, especially compared to someone like Tommy), he was capable of being absolutely brutal if he felt he was crossed. It showed how much he cared for Karen, and it cemented Karen's feelings for him, as f*cked up as the situation was.   And besides, Goodfellas is based on a true story.

[lerxt1990]

Jackie Brown = brilliant and his most underrated film. Great action, great story, great characters, great acting.

[Xanadoood]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 08:12 PM)

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 15 2010, 03:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I always felt the violence in Goodfellas was more over the top than in Resorvoir Dogs...how bout the scne where Ray Liotta smashes the shit out of that kids face with the gun?..How did that serve the story?...The ear cutting scene was there to set up Mr. Blonde being killed, and therefore outing who the rat was. And it really isnt even that brutal of a scene. First of all, Goodfellas is ten times better a film than Reservoir Dogs.   It showed that even though his character could come off as a somewhat nice and reasonable guy (for a gangster, especially compared to someone like Tommy), he was capable of being absolutely brutal if he felt he was crossed. It showed how much he cared for Karen, and it cemented Karen's feelings for him, as f*cked up as the situation was.   And besides, Goodfellas is based on a true story. You talked about the violence not serving the story. I believe it does in both Goodfellas and R.D. Both over the top, but both with a point. Why couldn't that scene been him just slamming the kid up against the car, putting the gun to his head, and telling him to back the fukk off?..That would have shown how bad ass he was. But it's a lot more fun when extreme violence is used.   I agree that Goodfellas is the superior film. But i don't think the violence in R.D is used against the story. It fits.   I am burnt out on the whole Mafia themed movies of the last 20 years or so anyway. I just think it's so cliche and stupid at this point.   Tarentino is good in small doses. I like R.D, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 15 2010, 08:24 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 08:12 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 15 2010, 03:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I always felt the violence in Goodfellas was more over the top than in Resorvoir Dogs...how bout the scne where Ray Liotta smashes the shit out of that kids face with the gun?..How did that serve the story?...The ear cutting scene was there to set up Mr. Blonde being killed, and therefore outing who the rat was. And it really isnt even that brutal of a scene. First of all, Goodfellas is ten times better a film than Reservoir Dogs.   It showed that even though his character could come off as a somewhat nice and reasonable guy (for a gangster, especially compared to someone like Tommy), he was capable of being absolutely brutal if he felt he was crossed. It showed how much he cared for Karen, and it cemented Karen's feelings for him, as f*cked up as the situation was.   And besides, Goodfellas is based on a true story. You talked about the violence not serving the story. I believe it does in both Goodfellas and R.D. Both over the top, but both with a point. Why couldn't that scene been him just slamming the kid up against the car, putting the gun to his head, and telling him to back the fukk off?..That would have shown how bad ass he was. But it's a lot more fun when extreme violence is used.   I agree that Goodfellas is the superior film. But i don't think the violence in R.D is used against the story. It fits.   I am burnt out on the whole Mafia themed movies of the last 20 years or so anyway. I just think it's so cliche and stupid at this point.   Tarentino is good in small doses. I like R.D, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. Regardless of whether the level of violence was appropriate or not, I thought Reservoir Dogs was just an exercise in style and that's it. The story is just not that good IMHO.   Goodfellas was a work of art. Tarentino isn't fit to be Scorcese's boom operator.

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ May 15 2010, 09:32 PM)

Jackie Brown = brilliant and his most underrated film. Great action, great story, great characters, great acting.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 15 2010, 05:43 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I'm surprised, since you're not a fan of Tarantino, that you're making such an effort in this thread Gary. You have already made these points several times, in several threads already. Why are you so eager to repeat yourself by making them over and over again, is what I'm wondering? Ok then I'll assume you got the bumsrush at a Tarantino signing and have sworn vengenace ever since...

[JohnnyBlaze]

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 16 2010, 02:46 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   I have seen Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction My original assessment fits those movies perfectly IMHO. I've seen enough of his movies and parts of others that I know I don't ever want to watch anything by him again. I'm glad I'm not the only person with this view of Tarantino.   While I will conceed that Resevoir Dogs was a reasonably gripping film, I don't count it as one of my favourites. Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, I felt was one of the most pretentious and incoherent couple of hours comitted to celuloid.   However, perhaps the most annoying thing I find about Tarantino is the sycophantic attitude his devotees display towards him.   Give me Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock any day of the week - they really knew how to make a film Kubrick (my personal favorite) and Hitchcock were not even from this planet. Tarentino is fun imho but yeah, nowhere near those 2 gods.   And damn I hated those Kill Bill films. Sure he was paying tribute but the dialogue itself sounded like it was Tarentino trying to be too much like Tarentino.

[lerxt1990]

I didnt care for the Kill Bill films that much. I really enjoyed Pulp Fiction, even with its extremes, and its "cartooney-ness". I thought Jackie Brown was brilliant - his best film.

 

I think Scorcese is a superior filmmaker. Goodfellas and Casino and all the others just great films. He's made some honkers too, but great filmmaker.

 

In a completely different genre, I really like the Coen brothers movies, and Wes Anderson movies for their quirkiness.

[ghostworks]

[Alex]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 15 2010, 05:43 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I'm surprised, since you're not a fan of Tarantino, that you're making such an effort in this thread Gary. You have already made these points several times, in several threads already. Why are you so eager to repeat yourself by making them over and over again, is what I'm wondering? I have never seen Gary talk about Tarentino nor have I ever engaged in a conversation with him about it. I am interested in his input.

[Alex]

[Alex]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 12:21 AM)

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 15 2010, 08:24 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 08:12 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ May 15 2010, 03:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 01:14 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 11:23 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 12:07 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 15 2010, 09:40 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 15 2010, 11:16 AM) highly overrated, unnecessary gratuitous violence, style just for style's sake, egotistical megalomania, etc. You bastard inglourious?   Reservoir Dogs is in no way too violent? Are you sure we both saw the same movie?   The movie was REAL. So the guy got shot in the stomach and there was a a pool of blood collecting around him slowly the entire movie? So how is that over the top? Thats just realistic. If by over the top you mean "I don't need to see a movie like this", then thats your opinion and tastes which I completely respect. There was no blood effect in Reservoir Dogs that wouldn't have happened in real life. Not over the top? Hmmm, I seem to also remember a scene having to do with an ear.   So, I'm sorry, your argument for Reservoir Dogs was that it was real and realistic? Sure thing, Mr. Yellow. Oh sorry, I mean Alex.   Just because that's what realistically might happen if a person was shot in the stomach and left to bleed for hours doesn't mean it's not gratuitous unnecessary violence. And you're right, it's not something I need to see.   If you enjoy his movies, that's cool. Just my opinion... So it basically comes down to you not wanting to see these kinds of things in movies. You think that in crime circles when bank robbers, a proffesional hitman and a mass murderer get togther theres going to be no violence?   Even when they find a cop they need information from, what will they do? Ask him nicely? Maybe a light punch to the face? No. Especially when the guy interrogating is a psycho. It was also done in a way that they didn't actually show him getting his ear cut off. Tthey force that shit in your face with the Saw movies.   All I'm saying is that what happened was fitting. Just because Tarentino's later movies had over the top violence just because he could doesn't mean his early movies need to be in that category as well. Just because he got MORE extreme later on doesn't mean I don't think it's still over the top violent in some of those earlier movies.   Take the ear scene - it's not like they show THAT much, but they show enough, and it's seriously disturbing.   Then again, there are plenty of movies that have some graphic violence that I don't mind at all - Silence of the Lambs, Lost Highway, A History of Violence, Goodfellas, etc.   I guess the difference is in those movies the violence served the story. Tarentino is in LOVE with violence - it's so much more than just what serves the story - he wants to shock people with it just to be in your face. It's fine, and there's nothing wrong with it if you like it, but I just don't.   Maybe if his stories were more interesting to me and not just loud and flashy style over substance, I wouldn't mind as much, but his stories seem so contrived to me that it's hard to care about anything or anyone in them.   I always get the feeling with Tarentino movies that he's like a little kid constantly going, "Look at me, look at me, look at me! Look at what I can do!" With directors I love, the director disappears and I'm swept away in the movie, even if I'm admiring the direction and their particular style throughout. With Tarentino, the guy is right there in every scene. No, it's more like he's right next to you spilling popcorn on you going over and over again, "Isn't this great?! Oh, check out this scene, this is one of my favorites!!!"   Yeah, there are moments in movies of his I've enjoyed, but mostly I just find him pretty obnoxious. I always felt the violence in Goodfellas was more over the top than in Resorvoir Dogs...how bout the scne where Ray Liotta smashes the shit out of that kids face with the gun?..How did that serve the story?...The ear cutting scene was there to set up Mr. Blonde being killed, and therefore outing who the rat was. And it really isnt even that brutal of a scene. First of all, Goodfellas is ten times better a film than Reservoir Dogs.   It showed that even though his character could come off as a somewhat nice and reasonable guy (for a gangster, especially compared to someone like Tommy), he was capable of being absolutely brutal if he felt he was crossed. It showed how much he cared for Karen, and it cemented Karen's feelings for him, as f*cked up as the situation was.   And besides, Goodfellas is based on a true story. You talked about the violence not serving the story. I believe it does in both Goodfellas and R.D. Both over the top, but both with a point. Why couldn't that scene been him just slamming the kid up against the car, putting the gun to his head, and telling him to back the fukk off?..That would have shown how bad ass he was. But it's a lot more fun when extreme violence is used.   I agree that Goodfellas is the superior film. But i don't think the violence in R.D is used against the story. It fits.   I am burnt out on the whole Mafia themed movies of the last 20 years or so anyway. I just think it's so cliche and stupid at this point.   Tarentino is good in small doses. I like R.D, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. Regardless of whether the level of violence was appropriate or not, I thought Reservoir Dogs was just an exercise in style and that's it. The story is just not that good IMHO.   Goodfellas was a work of art. Tarentino isn't fit to be Scorcese's boom operator. It doesn't help that Scorcese gave a thunbs up to Reservoir Dogs himself for good cinematography and story.   Like I said, Tarentino's first three movies were great and other directors loved it as well. And I'm not a Tarentino humper here, I'm just giving my honest opinion. As said in the thread before, Tarentino's more recent movies are just Tarentino showing violence because he is Tarentino and I personally don't like those movies very much.