Mugato: farkingismybusiness: If that's a bad thing, I'm not sure I follow your logic. What about No Country for Old Men, The Godfather, LOTR, countless others. Unoriginal?

No it's not a bad thing. All I meant was that Pulp Fiction was IMO the only movie that he wrote that wasn't highly derivative of something else. I suppose Inglorious Basterds would was too.

It's also his only good movie.

Yes, because QT isn't known for anything else. He writes better dialogue when he's drunk than other screenwriters are capable of.

Mugato: Calmamity: Mugato: 9beers: Yes, because QT isn't known for anything else. He writes better dialogue when he's drunk than other screenwriters are capable of.

Except for Death Proof. The dialog scenes in that film were brutal to sit through.

What do you expect? He was drunk.

No... wait.

Maybe he got off the blow.

What was he on during Kill Bill? Mescaline?

I love Tarantino's films. I don't care if it's not cool any more.

His films are consistently fun. He has his own world, his own style. You can argue that his style is nothing more than a mishmash of elements of other people's style, but there is no one else out there turning out films that look and feel like his.

I know this because half the films put out in the 5 or 6 years after Pulp Fiction was released tried to emulate his style and they all failed.

I'd love to see Tarantino redo some common movie tropes.

Imagine, momentarily, if Tarantino did a Star Wars movie. Or a James Bond. Or a comic book movie.

A Tarantino western might just kick ass.

/Tarantino is actually in Chrome's spell-check.

and feet

Mugato: Tarantino had one good original film in him, Pulp Fiction. But that's one more than most people have.

I thought that was mostly Roger Avery (at least, if you listen to Avery).

I'd say True Romance was the one original movie QT had in him, but I don't see that a problem. No ones had an original idea behind a movie camera since some genius said, "I know! Two girls doing it! Really doing it!"

GreenAdder: It sounds like an interesting plot. Why just tag it as another Django movie?

Because QT is probably the best postmodern artist working today, and one of the things he's got going for him is that film is a fundamentally postmodern medium.

wildcardjack: Or a James Bond.

He actually wrote a long memo and sent it to EON Productions on how they should reboot the Bond franchise. They won't admit it, but some of the ideas made it into Casino Royale.

/I'd prefer to see him create his own spy movie series, as I believe one of his points was that Bond HAS to be set during the Cold War. It's why he doesn't work so well any more.

I was going to make a joke on the order of "oh, good, a conflict so obviously black and white that Tarantino couldn't possibly break suspension of disbelief by overdoing the caricatures the characters present", but then I remember that his last film broke willing suspension of disbelief by making the goddamned Nazis more evil than the audience could reasonable accept. He's like the Kevin Smith of action movies at this point, some good stuff in his past but he needs to stop thinking that taking the theme of his last film and jacking it up by another couple notches counts as filmmaking.

It must really KILL the hipsters when someone like Tarantino is creative and better at it than they are!! I think I see evidence of it in this very thread!!

Inaditch: I love Tarantino's films. I don't care if it's not cool any more.

His films are consistently fun. He has his own world, his own style. You can argue that his style is nothing more than a mishmash of elements of other people's style, but there is no one else out there turning out films that look and feel like his.


He's like in that 1% of directors who seems to completely ignore modern movie-making trends. Yes, you can say some of his stuff is derivative but he mashes them up in a way that hasn't been seen before.

And besides the violence his films are also very dialogue heavy so way to fail with that snarky remark, subby.

I'll admit that I haven't seen any Tarantino films.. I just haven't had any desire to.

Jim_Callahan: I was going to make a joke on the order of "oh, good, a conflict so obviously black and white that Tarantino couldn't possibly break suspension of disbelief by overdoing the caricatures the characters present", but then I remember that his last film broke willing suspension of disbelief by making the goddamned Nazis more evil than the audience could reasonable accept.

It could have been worse. I heard he really wanted to include a scene where they herded a bunch of Jews into a camp and then murdered them in a gas chamber, but decided it was too over-the-top and nobody would believe it.

GreenAdder: No, but it's a movie with the word "Django" in the title. There aren't enough of those floating around. But Tarantino wants you to think he's the only one who's ever heard of these things.

That sneaky bastard. Glad you're making sure he's not getting away with this.

The wife will probably be in shackles, barefoot. He'll cut to her shuffling in a chain gang. Lingering over the many damaged feet until the camera pans to her feet. Which inexplicably have pink nail polish on them.

browntimmy: Inaditch: I love Tarantino's films. I don't care if it's not cool any more.

His films are consistently fun. He has his own world, his own style. You can argue that his style is nothing more than a mishmash of elements of other people's style, but there is no one else out there turning out films that look and feel like his.


He's like in that 1% of directors who seems to completely ignore modern movie-making trends. Yes, you can say some of his stuff is derivative but he mashes them up in a way that hasn't been seen before.

Some of his stuff is derivative? Some? There were maybe five shots in Inglourious Basterds that weren't derivative of Sergio Leone, Sam Peckinpah, or the director of the Dirty Dozen.

Not that that's a bad thing. It's still a good movie, but Tarantino is more of a cinematic mix tape DJ than some trend defying auteur.

Also, who cares about how much violence is in this movie? As long as it has the requisite foot fetish photography and lots of racial slurs, I'll be just fine.

Alphax: I'll admit that I haven't seen any Tarantino films.. I just haven't had any desire to.

That is very cool, but not quite as cool as the fact that you don't even own a TV.

I'm still unashamed to admit that I love Tarantino's movies (though apparently I may lose my Fark card over it). To me each new one is an event in and of itself, and I always find them enjoyable. I sometimes like to read scripts of upcoming anticipated flicks, and so I read Django Unchained a few months ago (it's easy to find online). I expect that apart from Pulp Fiction this will be his best film yet. The Christoph Waltz character is incredible and will probably earn him another Oscar nomination.

CSS-True Romance, got tix to the sneak peak premiere, went to it with my girlfriend and we of course loved it. Enjoyed the hello out of it, and 3/4th's of the way into it, as we are sitting on the end since she hated to have anyone sit on the other side of her, nearly get a lap dance from one Christian Slater, a tad drunk and unable to negotiate the dark aisle up. He was very nice and apologized, asked us how we liked the film, and then bummed a smoke. Had a VERY nervous and pissy assistant rush over and hustle him away, but for one brief moment, I was one with Clarence. Thank you Clarence, for not vomiting on us. We have always appreciated that.

GoHomeAndGetYourShinebox: I'm still unashamed to admit that I love Tarantino's movies (though apparently I may lose my Fark card over it).

I'm with you, Most of them are great (at least good) movies. My mom watches them more than I do, so I think people's preference to them boils down to whether you like his distinctive style or not.

/Inglorious Basterds got SNUBBED

Curious to see how it fares with a new film editor.

She made his fims great.
For those of you hating on Death Proof for the dialogue, it was a chick flick.