Tarantino is not entirely bad but I still stand by my opinion that Inglourious Basterds sucks. It's like he started to parody himself, sitting down and thinking "I'll write some cool, Tarantino-esque dialogue now" and putting down some random, mildy amusing crap. And then adds some movie references for the sake of having movie references. And then adds some violence for the sake of having violence. He has become less inspired and more formulaic over the years imho.
The only parallel I see to Lynch however is that a lot of clueless fags have seen one of their movies and then claim to be a Lynch / Tarantino fan in order to look avant garde / like a cineast / like a douchebag hipster and impress their even more clueless friends.
WittyHandle
I don't enjoy Tarantino's films for the violence. I don't like watching violence in general. What I have always enjoyed is his dialog, which was a little lacking in Inglorious Basterds. One of my fav's of his was Death Proof, which I've heard referred to as a movie version of The View (a bunch of women sitting around talking). He isn't about plot, he's about enjoying the ride, and I really enjoy the ride.
I can see where someone would say he borrowed from Lynch's style, but what's wrong with that? I like each of their respective styles and each makes it work for them. People always say that Tarantino just steals from others, I say he's sampling to form his own style, and he does it very well.
EgosXII
i think most of my rage is pent up from kill bill... the hype around it when it came out was simply unbelievable for a film i really did not like.
again, few cool scenes, but the only good things about them were copied from actually awesome films (the kung-fu, and samurai films they mimiced), and copied so badly it was insulting...
LAdazeNYnights, GREAT point about tarantino focusing on cutting off the ear, while lynch (and nearly all other directors) would focus on the ear itself.
and witty, i'm all about the journey man, i havn't been suprised by a film for a very long time, but i love film, i don't care what happens at the end, or if there's a lot of twists, it's all been done a million times...
I'm a character and dialogue man, and there is simply nothing of it in tarantino... his characters are shallow, and ugly, not helped by consistently bad casting as i mentioned earlier, and the dialogue is equally shallow and glib, either copying other people's styles (but not well (so yes there is a problem doing it!)), or just randomly trying to spin hyperbole so it sounds good...
death proof actually wasn't too bad! :)
WittyHandle
I guess my only comment on what you wrote is on the first line... don't let hype or expectations ruin the work itself, or even affect it at all. I've let that happen too many times, and only in the last couple years have I learned to avoid it. The director's job (and producer's) is to make the movie, the studio's job is to promote it. If you don't like a movie, that's cool, but don't let it be because of being bombarded with hype or having expectations for it :)
Trancefxs
Those who claim that Tarantino is monodimensional should watch Jackie Brown. The only thing that Taratino and Lynch have in common is that they have made two of the best neo-noirs: the already mentioned Jackie Brown and Mullholland Drive.
EgosXII
jackie brown was ok, nothing special imo, definitely didn't stand out when i saw it, but it did lack alot of the outrageous crap that his more recent stuff has :p
ANYWAY...
just watched book of eli,
ing hilarous twist at the end (it's not meant to be, but it's so silly i lol'd), pretty bad movie but worth watching if you're bored :p
i definitely have a soft-spot for dystopian film & literature though, so could imagine a lot of people would hate it :p
Trancefxs
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
jackie brown was ok, nothing special imo, definitely didn't stand out when i saw it, but it did lack alot of the outrageous crap that his more recent stuff has :p
No one has been able to transpose an Elmore novel on screen like Tarantino did. You said that he can't write dialogues and the majority of the characters of his films don't have depth, then I doubt you have seen Jackie Brown with the needed attention.
LeopoldStotch
:eyes:
couch-potato
Watched Speed Racer in Blu-ray last night. I love that film. So whimsically overdone in every way :)
chimera66
watched un prophète last night, although long (2.5hrs) it was really good. it's a french crime/drama about malik, an orphaned, illiterate, young, non-muslim french-arab, who arrives to a 6yr jail sentence all alone hoping to remain unnoticed. he is recruited to work for the ruling corscian gang and from there gains protection then over time he grows as a person. ultimately malik learns to straddle the line between all the different forces around him and he is anything but unnoticed. i really loved this movie.
bananas
tarantino is a ing awesome writer and director
bananas
quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
I don't enjoy Tarantino's films for the violence. I don't like watching violence in general. What I have always enjoyed is his dialog, which was a little lacking in Inglorious Basterds. One of my fav's of his was Death Proof, which I've heard referred to as a movie version of The View (a bunch of women sitting around talking). He isn't about plot, he's about enjoying the ride, and I really enjoy the ride.
I can see where someone would say he borrowed from Lynch's style, but what's wrong with that? I like each of their respective styles and each makes it work for them. People always say that Tarantino just steals from others, I say he's sampling to form his own style, and he does it very well.
quote:
The only parallel I see to Lynch however is that a lot of clueless fags have seen one of their movies and then claim to be a Lynch / Tarantino fan in order to look avant garde / like a cineast / like a douchebag hipster and impress their even more clueless friends.
