Tarentino Anyone?

[yyztmmb]

I think Tarantino is an acquired taste.

Kinda like Rush.

[Mara]

After Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill, I gave up. I don't know why I even persevered with those three, given my hatred for the first two, but everyone kept insisting that I HAD to like Tarentino movies. They just couldn't understand why I didn't. I remember metioning at a party how much I hated Pulp Fiction and it was like one of those EF Hutton moments, except everyone was looking at me like, "who let HER in here?"

Since I'm a chick, of course everyone assumed I was offended by the violence. I of course felt the need to further blaspheme by explaining that no, the violence wasn't the problem - sheer unutterable boredom was.

 

Normally I like films that are usually considered "guy movies". Tarentino just doesn't do it for me.

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (Mara @ May 16 2010, 02:20 PM)

After Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill, I gave up. I don't know why I even persevered with those three, given my hatred for the first two, but everyone kept insisting that I HAD to like Tarentino movies. They just couldn't understand why I didn't. I remember metioning at a party how much I hated Pulp Fiction and it was like one of those EF Hutton moments, except everyone was looking at me like, "who let HER in here?" Since I'm a chick, of course everyone assumed I was offended by the violence. I of course felt the need to further blaspheme by explaining that no, the violence wasn't the problem - sheer unutterable boredom was. Normally I like films that are usually considered "guy movies". Tarentino just doesn't do it for me.

Did you see Jackie Brown? Im just interested how you would rate that one, which had (IMO) a much more compelling story than any of the other QT movies...

[Ya_Big_Tree]

QUOTE (ghostworks @ May 16 2010, 10:03 AM)

From Dusk Till Dawn

Robert Rodriguez was the director for From Dusk Til Dawn, Tarentino just acted in it.

 

Did anyone care for Death Proof at all?

 

I thought it was pretty good... not typical Tarentino. It had an edgy, action packed storyline. I love how it was the women kicking ass in it.

 

I love Resevoir Dogs... it remains to be in my Top Heist Films.

 

 

[Slaine mac Roth]

Actuall Tarantino was also the writer of FDTD. I happen to quite partial to the Rodrigeuz films I've seen but I hav to confess that this is probably my least favourite

[Mara]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ May 16 2010, 03:39 PM)

QUOTE (Mara @ May 16 2010, 02:20 PM) After Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill, I gave up.  I don't know why I even persevered with those three, given my hatred for the first two, but everyone kept insisting that I HAD to like Tarentino movies.  They just couldn't understand why I didn't.  I remember metioning at a party how much I hated Pulp Fiction and it was like one of those EF Hutton moments, except everyone was looking at me like, "who let HER in here?"  Since I'm a chick, of course everyone assumed I was offended by the violence.  I of course felt the need to further blaspheme by explaining that no, the violence wasn't the problem - sheer unutterable boredom was. Normally I like films that are usually considered "guy movies".  Tarentino just doesn't do it for me. Did you see Jackie Brown? Im just interested how you would rate that one, which had (IMO) a much more compelling story than any of the other QT movies... I've already given Tarentino about 6 hours of my life. That's all he gets. I tried to like his movies, I really did.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM)

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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM)

QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? He said he hadn't seen you talk about Tarantino before now he knows otherwise...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? And you never answered my question rushgoober...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 02:02 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? He said he hadn't seen you talk about Tarantino before now he knows otherwise...   Why don't you just exercise the easy option to not read my posts if you know they're going to be repetitive to you? Then you don't have to bother everyone else.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 02:03 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? And you never answered my question rushgoober... I did. I sent you a PM because I didn't want to bother everyone on the thread with your BS and throw it off-topic. Feel free to respond there.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:04 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 02:02 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? He said he hadn't seen you talk about Tarantino before now he knows otherwise...   Why don't you just exercise the easy option to not read my posts if you know they're going to be repetitive to you? Then you don't have to bother everyone else. I odn't know why you can't answer a reasonable question, why DO you keep harping on about Tarantino over an over?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:05 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 02:03 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? And you never answered my question rushgoober... I did. I sent you a PM because I didn't want to bother everyone on the thread with your BS and throw it off-topic. Feel free to respond there. You didn't answer the question in the PM you made a drama about me "stalking you" ie if I ever dare to question anything you on here I get a PM saying "why man, what did I ever do to you?" like I kille your cat or something...jeez...I ask a reasonable question an this is what I get...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ May 15 2010, 06:32 PM)

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

I saw Jackie Brown when it came out. I guess I liked it ok. Honestly, I don't remember it all that well. I've never been inspired to see it again.

[Mara]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 05:10 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:05 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 02:03 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? And you never answered my question rushgoober... I did. I sent you a PM because I didn't want to bother everyone on the thread with your BS and throw it off-topic. Feel free to respond there. You didn't answer the question in the PM you made a drama about me "stalking you" ie if I ever dare to question anything you on here I get a PM saying "why man, what did I ever do to you?" like I kille your cat or something...jeez...I ask a reasonable question an this is what I get...   I think rushgoober has a dog, not a cat. Accuracy, you know. It counts.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Mara @ May 16 2010, 05:07 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 05:10 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:05 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 02:03 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 16 2010, 04:00 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 16 2010, 01:58 PM) QUOTE (Alex @ May 16 2010, 01:41 PM) 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. http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...70&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31451&hl=   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...74&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...tarantino&st=60   (You started the above thread...I guess y'all musta forgot)   quick mention in another cronenberg thread:   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...72&hl=tarantino   http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?show...40&hl=tarantino Treeduck, WTF dude? And you never answered my question rushgoober... I did. I sent you a PM because I didn't want to bother everyone on the thread with your BS and throw it off-topic. Feel free to respond there. You didn't answer the question in the PM you made a drama about me "stalking you" ie if I ever dare to question anything you on here I get a PM saying "why man, what did I ever do to you?" like I kille your cat or something...jeez...I ask a reasonable question an this is what I get...   I think rushgoober has a dog, not a cat. Accuracy, you know. It counts. Maybe he used to have a cat and he thinks I'm the one who sneaked in one night like Max Cady and killed it...which means that goobs is Nick Nolte going through people's trash cans to find his dead cat...right?

[VarianStar]

"Reservoir Dogs" and "Jackie Brown" were amazing films. That's about it for me where QT is concerned. He hasn't done much of anything to hold my interest except for these two movies. I thought "Pulp Fiction" was a bore save for a few decent parts. I never even bothered to watch both "Kill Bill" films all the way through, boring.

[Rush Cocky]

Thought Pulp Fiction was classic. Loved the Kill Bill films, and Jackie Brown was pretty good too.

 

Edited May 18, 2010 by Rush Cocky

[theredtamasrule]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ May 15 2010, 08:32 PM)

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

This. It's so good because it's the least "Tarentino" of any film he's made.

 

Reservoir Dogs was a nice thriller, Pulp was sheer spectacle and style and vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity. His other films are more of the same.

 

Kill Bill...shoulda been Kill Me for watching both parts. The last of his films that I will watch.

[Cowtothesky]

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ May 18 2010, 01:00 PM)

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ May 15 2010, 08:32 PM) Jackie Brown = brilliant and his most underrated film.  Great action, great story, great characters, great acting. This. It's so good because it's the least "Tarentino" of any film he's made.   Reservoir Dogs was a nice thriller, Pulp was sheer spectacle and style and vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity. His other films are more of the same.   Kill Bill...shoulda been Kill Me for watching both parts. The last of his films that I will watch. How can you not like Kill Bill? Honestly? That movie (both) was a masterpiece from front to end. Period.

[JohnnyBlaze]

[Presto-digitation]

I'm completely apathetic about the kung fu genre and so I passed on Kill Bill in the theater. Saw it on a whim as a rental and LOVED it. I pretty much vowed I'd never again miss a Tarantino film in the theater because no matter how disinterested I might be by a particular subject, his filmmaking is strong enough to draw me in without fail.

 

The ONLY films of his I don't like are the ones where he's worked with someone else (his segment in Four Rooms, the film with Robert Rodriquez, etc) or where he's scripted a film that someone else made (True Romance, Natural Born Killers). I ardently dislike all of those movies.

 

HIS films are killer.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Presto-digitation

[Cowtothesky]

[lerxt1990]

What about Death Proof. That was kinda cool...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M1r3e1eCNg&feature=related