I didn't include it here since I was concentrating on films QT directed. This film will be included with the Robert Rodriguez guide, whenever I get around to posting that!
FDTD seems to be two different films joined at the middle, almost as if Tarantino started the film and Rodriguez finished it. Neither part is terrible; they simply clash, IMHO.
Agreed. The first half is great Tarantino, and could have been an excellent vehicle for something like Way of the Gun. He must have abused SOME kind of substance, however, when he gets them to the bar. This is so B-Movie, it's almost C-Movie. Personally, I think the writing and directing in the last half barely meets run-of-the-mill horror flick standards. What a shame.
Oof . . . Four Rooms . . . I had blocked that from my mind entirely. I'm cringing all over again.
Curious . . . Which did you prefer: Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction? Have we had this discussion already? How I yearn for the ability to search discussions.
Geez. It's not enough I have to rate 'em 1 to 5 stars; now I have to rank two 5-star films! ;)
I give a slight edge to Pulp Fiction over Reservoir Dogs. He aims higher with PF, and I think he pulls it off. RD, of course, is a great neo-heist film with shades of Treasure of the Sierra Madre and classic noir, but in the end, PF pleases me a bit more.
I'd have to watch Reservoir Dogs again to be sure, but I think I have to give it the nod. The banter was slightly less polished, but for some reason I liked it because of that. I still remember some of the dialog from RD quite well (like fighting over the names) while I only have vague recollections of the Pulp Fiction dialog. And RD had That Scene that was so disturbing. Not that disturbation should be an end of itself, but it had been awhile since I was disturbed.
Bangs and jim,
It's a shame that some feel the polished, more trendy style makes Pulp Fiction less 'worthy.' It seems that in most circles, they'll give the edge to RD just because it's more gritty. PF shows what a good writer/director can do with strong backing and all the tools he wants at his fingertips. The dungeon scene (rape scene) is comparably as disturbing as the ear scene in RD. The complexity of PF, and the fact that the stories came together so well, but not tritely, gives PF the edge over RD, IMO.
Well, I still haven't gotten around to rewatching RD, but I've seen PF twice and I still find RD more memorable, although that may be because I saw it first. Regarding relative disturbance-factor of ear scene vs. dungeon scene, I thought the dungeon scene's impact was somewhat mitigated by the humor of Bruce Willis searching for an appropriate weapon.
The Ultimate Guide was really only a title used to signify the list was the work of the old Critical Underground. All of the Ultimate Guides only included films directed by the person highlighted, with the exception of the Bruce Willis list.
With all due respect, NO WAY! :-) It was inevitable, with all the guns in Tarantino movies, that he'd eventually shoot himself in the foot. The pacing of Jackie Brown (which is dog-slow) blows it's toe off. Thus it limps along, bleeding and trying vainly to keep up with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
I agree that Jackie Brown does not rival Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, but I must disagree that the film was trying to keep up with the other films. It is a different type of film, one that is much more interested in character study than in suspense or shocks. It doesn't try to out-Tarantino Quentin's earlier films because it is trying to do something different.
And while I prefer the two earlier films, Jackie Brown is quite great in its own right. The slower pace was deliberate and successful, in my book.
I'll admit that the blown-off toe isn't fatal, but it sure does smart.
But seriously, would you be willing to elaborate on why you feel Jackie Brown is trying to do something different? My recollection of JB (which is admittedly hazy, since I really didn't care for it), is that it was an ensemble cast featuring mostly criminals. It was character- and dialog-driven, non-chronological, and with separate-but-converging plot lines. All very reminiscent of QT's earlier work, but weaker in every regard. The characters, edgy in the other two movies, seem tired here. The dialog/banter in JB doesn't have the snap as in the other two movies, and at times feels forced. The characters/dialog drive QT movies, and with those lagging, the slower pace was a detriment rather than an interesting stylistic change (IMO, of course!).
Where would you put "From Dusk to Dawn"? I found it pretty good, especially in the way I reacted to the different types of violence in the movie.
From Dusk Till Dawn: **
I didn't include it here since I was concentrating on films QT directed. This film will be included with the Robert Rodriguez guide, whenever I get around to posting that!
FDTD seems to be two different films joined at the middle, almost as if Tarantino started the film and Rodriguez finished it. Neither part is terrible; they simply clash, IMHO.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Agreed. The first half is great Tarantino, and could have been an excellent vehicle for something like Way of the Gun. He must have abused SOME kind of substance, however, when he gets them to the bar. This is so B-Movie, it's almost C-Movie. Personally, I think the writing and directing in the last half barely meets run-of-the-mill horror flick standards. What a shame.
Oof . . . Four Rooms . . . I had blocked that from my mind entirely. I'm cringing all over again.
Curious . . . Which did you prefer: Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction? Have we had this discussion already? How I yearn for the ability to search discussions.
Geez. It's not enough I have to rate 'em 1 to 5 stars; now I have to rank two 5-star films! ;)
I give a slight edge to Pulp Fiction over Reservoir Dogs. He aims higher with PF, and I think he pulls it off. RD, of course, is a great neo-heist film with shades of Treasure of the Sierra Madre and classic noir, but in the end, PF pleases me a bit more.
And you?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I'd have to watch Reservoir Dogs again to be sure, but I think I have to give it the nod. The banter was slightly less polished, but for some reason I liked it because of that. I still remember some of the dialog from RD quite well (like fighting over the names) while I only have vague recollections of the Pulp Fiction dialog. And RD had That Scene that was so disturbing. Not that disturbation should be an end of itself, but it had been awhile since I was disturbed.
Bangs and jim,
It's a shame that some feel the polished, more trendy style makes Pulp Fiction less 'worthy.' It seems that in most circles, they'll give the edge to RD just because it's more gritty. PF shows what a good writer/director can do with strong backing and all the tools he wants at his fingertips. The dungeon scene (rape scene) is comparably as disturbing as the ear scene in RD. The complexity of PF, and the fact that the stories came together so well, but not tritely, gives PF the edge over RD, IMO.
Well, I still haven't gotten around to rewatching RD, but I've seen PF twice and I still find RD more memorable, although that may be because I saw it first. Regarding relative disturbance-factor of ear scene vs. dungeon scene, I thought the dungeon scene's impact was somewhat mitigated by the humor of Bruce Willis searching for an appropriate weapon.
Oh, and sorry to force anybody to think about Four Rooms again. It got a *. They should give you an idea how bad my 1/2 * films are!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
If this is the Ultimate Guide to Quentin Tarantino shouldn't it include some of the other screenplays that he wrote?
The Ultimate Guide was really only a title used to signify the list was the work of the old Critical Underground. All of the Ultimate Guides only included films directed by the person highlighted, with the exception of the Bruce Willis list.
Does that make sense?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Jackie Brown rivals Pulp Fiction in greatnestt. Than comes Reservoir Dogs.
With all due respect, NO WAY! :-) It was inevitable, with all the guns in Tarantino movies, that he'd eventually shoot himself in the foot. The pacing of Jackie Brown (which is dog-slow) blows it's toe off. Thus it limps along, bleeding and trying vainly to keep up with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
Well...
I agree that Jackie Brown does not rival Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, but I must disagree that the film was trying to keep up with the other films. It is a different type of film, one that is much more interested in character study than in suspense or shocks. It doesn't try to out-Tarantino Quentin's earlier films because it is trying to do something different.
And while I prefer the two earlier films, Jackie Brown is quite great in its own right. The slower pace was deliberate and successful, in my book.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I'll admit that the blown-off toe isn't fatal, but it sure does smart.
But seriously, would you be willing to elaborate on why you feel Jackie Brown is trying to do something different? My recollection of JB (which is admittedly hazy, since I really didn't care for it), is that it was an ensemble cast featuring mostly criminals. It was character- and dialog-driven, non-chronological, and with separate-but-converging plot lines. All very reminiscent of QT's earlier work, but weaker in every regard. The characters, edgy in the other two movies, seem tired here. The dialog/banter in JB doesn't have the snap as in the other two movies, and at times feels forced. The characters/dialog drive QT movies, and with those lagging, the slower pace was a detriment rather than an interesting stylistic change (IMO, of course!).