There was nothing in Pulp Fiction which wasn't in Twin Peaks.13urnzz wrote:
Pulp Fiction is the best film of April 1, 1994
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-02-06 01:23:44)
Uhh... Why are you comparing him to David Lynch?Dilbert_X wrote:
There was nothing in Pulp Fiction which wasn't in Twin Peaks.13urnzz wrote:
Pulp Fiction is the best film of April 1, 1994
There's a narrow line between paying homage and sucking dick. Tarantino does nothing but the latter, with a bit of B-movie gore and ultraviolence because no-ones ever done that before
uhh... because tarantino has quite obviously and consciously taken most of david lynch's stylistic hallmarks? if you know anything about lynch and his movies, you will see rightaway that tarantino has pretty much wholesale copied most of his signature techniques.Ultrafunkula wrote:
Uhh... Why are you comparing him to David Lynch?Dilbert_X wrote:
There was nothing in Pulp Fiction which wasn't in Twin Peaks.13urnzz wrote:
Pulp Fiction is the best film of April 1, 1994
There's a narrow line between paying homage and sucking dick. Tarantino does nothing but the latter, with a bit of B-movie gore and ultraviolence because no-ones ever done that before
korova milk barDilbert_X wrote:
ultraviolence
already mentioned by me and dilbert in about 4 different posts. read.Ultrafunkula wrote:
Seen them pretty much all. Since I don't pay attention to that stuff when watching movies, what techniques do you mean? Gimme a few examples.
Planet Terror is a fun movieAussieReaper wrote:
In all honesty I want to hear your opinion on Planet Terror.
I dunno, it makes no sense, I mean why do people compare George Lucas with Akira Kurosawa?Ultrafunkula wrote:
Uhh... Why are you comparing him to David Lynch?Dilbert_X wrote:
There was nothing in Pulp Fiction which wasn't in Twin Peaks.13urnzz wrote:
Pulp Fiction is the best film of April 1, 1994
There's a narrow line between paying homage and sucking dick. Tarantino does nothing but the latter, with a bit of B-movie gore and ultraviolence because no-ones ever done that before
Yes, tarantino's cameo was bad. The 'deus ex machina' escape didn't really bother me. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and had many laughs. I don't understand why people are complaining about Foxx's acting (as most 'critics' are doing) because imo he did great in the role he was given. What did people expect from him? The character was written to be a certain way and Foxx acted django perfectly.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
are you kidding? django unchained is not a great movie. review your opinion in 3 months, after the hype has worn off.Shocking wrote:
Django Unchained
Absolute 10/10. Best Tarantino film I've seen and I've seen them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMkujuy9bMc
!
it was a 7/10 for me, at best. the plot was fucking terrible. the twist/escape deus ex machina was fucking laughable. tarantino's cameo was no longer a quaint in-joke and reference, and more of an outright disrespect - the worst acting he has ever done. jamie as the lead actor was bad: his acting only seemed good in the scenes where he was next to tarantino, which is really saying something. the violence and nigger references were tedious. the whole movie is wrapped up in an ethically dubious sense of boring-predictable controversy that i don't care for one bit. half of the scenes coulda met the cutting room floor, graciously, and stayed there. the KKK pillow-case scene wasn't funny, wasn't intelligent, wasn't slapstick, and wasn't right being in the movie (nor was the fat kid from superbad's casting, and terrible accent).
"10/10 best ever tarantino" suggests you are not much of a film buff. if you want an exotically-themed gore-fest, kill bill is far superior in just about every single way.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-02-07 11:57:38)
Agreed. I saw it when visiting the USA and I was speaking English all the time, so it was a nice opportunity to practice my German while I was away from Vienna for so many weeks. Didn't have to look at the subtitles once. If it wasn't for Waltz, the movie would have been even worse. If it wasn't for Brad Pitt, it might have been better.AussieReaper wrote:
I didn't like Inglorious Basterds.
It was a stupid movie.
QT is about violence for the sake of violence. It has no place, no meaning, no sense. I agree with Uzique when he said the bounty hunting scenes were when the movie was at its best. Certainly it had its violent moments, but it all made sense. After that, it just seemed to be blood and guts because he felt the scene didn't have enough. I don't know. I liked Django much more than Basterds, but it certainly isn't the Holy Grail that so many are hailing it to be.Superior Mind wrote:
I was always skeptical of film majors whose favorite director was Quentin Tarantino. I enjoyed all of his films, but his style reminds me of anime more so than in any other films. I like anime so that's not an issue with me. The excess gore is not meant to be serious. I interpret it as being a kind of exaggerated dramatics, a vaudeville style of performance. What this style achieves is over-stimulation in whatever emotion is being grabbed at. This opposes to the general logical complication of a film which draws on that to achieve more subtle, but more powerful, emotional grabs. Of all the directors that do pure entertainment, Tarantino does some of the best.
the Premise of weird science. ruby sparks - he writes about his dream girl and she comes to life.. pretty similar.War Man wrote:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it is Weird Science.
Last edited by Kimmmmmmmmmmmm (2013-02-09 08:52:14)
If you've read the book, you'll like the David Fincher version better. The Swedish version sucked, I really did not enjoy it at all. They changed far too much from the book and the American version stays much truer to the original material. That being said, the second Swedish movie was quite good, so I'm sure the second American one will blow our socks off.Jaekus wrote:
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - 9/10
I haven't seen the original and I've heard that is better.
Then what do you have to complain about?Glad I didn't pay to see it in a theatre.
How did you see it then? I really hope youre judging a visual spectacle meant to be seen in 48fps and 3D on a shakey cam with people talking in the background-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Glad I didn't pay to see it in a theatre.
