Tom Hooper's a pretty shitty director, so I wouldn't doubt that.

I dislike musicals in general; I've only ever managed to sit through three film versions. Les Mis looks like my idea of hell...



Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. My two final points (sorry, I have to rattle these off, otherwise I'll be thinking about this all night): a) I really don't think the audience needs to want good things to happen to characters in films like Splice; I thought the general horror of their situation, even though it was their fault, was enough to establish the bare minimum of sympathetic engagement I require and make me wish a little that things didn't go even more horribly wrong for the characters. b)

Rare Exports A Christmas Tale, directed by Jalmari Helander 2010. A very good film indeed, a look at the origins of the real Santa a really original tale and funny too. It is refreshing to see films being made about the folklore about Santa.

What the FUCK?! First Les Mis, now Wicked?!

I bet you people also hate Phantom, Chicago, and Miss Saigon.

EDIT: Oh wait, those musicals contain music, so yes. You guys probably do hate them.

There you go again, making non-arguments appear out of thin air. You're like an argument magician. But one of those magicians who's sleigh of hand is really shit. Who can't be bothered to practice it, cause he's too busy getting hammered while listening to Nightwish.

What a seasonally appropriate typo!

Also it has been established that Zelkiiro has crappy taste in movies, metal, and anime. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he had crappy taste in musicals too, though I personally know nothing about them.

I've read the script. I'm a paid screenwriter, so it's sort of my job to keep up with the status quo of what's popular. It was fucking garbage, like all of his screenplays.

The only reason I brought it up was because my Facebook was "blowing up" with excited "OH EM GEE, TARANTINO TYME!!!" style status-updates from all of my idiot friends, and I came here to unleash a mini-rant before this thread started erupting with Tarantino worship (like it did when the reprehensible Inglourious Basterds shat itself all over the cinema screen.) You know as well as I the next few pages will be littered with Tarantino talk; ain't nothin' wrong with getting in your opinion early.

You're still not telling us why you think his screenplays are garbage, so no one cares about your opinion, especially after delivering it the way you did. Do you feel a lot smarter than everyone else for having put that out there before the Tarantino worship floodgate opens?

...because he isn't a writer? Spend five minutes with any of his scripts and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, finally saw TDKR. Some thoughts:

I liked TDKR in the theaters, but I was really really bored when I watched it again recently, it's the worst Nolan Batman by far.

Damn dude, you're so elitist about Tarantino, you really sound like a jealous screenwriter more than anything.

Probably because I am . My greatest "achievement" so far is getting a script optioned to The Asylum...

Yes, that Asylum.

Tarantino is still crap though, and completely full of himself as well.
I sort of forgot why I hated him until I catched a bit of Kill Bill 2 on tv. I loved that "this truth serum will take 3 minutes to work, so allow me a masturbatory philosophical monologue of questionable relevance to the movie" part.
Well, I didn't really love it, but i would have if I'd enjoy screenwriters jerking themselves off in my face.
I also love (in a genuine sense, because it makes me feel clever) when I can tell if a scene is a reference to another movie even though I've never seen it, simply by how hamfisted it is.

ITT: failsafeman hates Schindler's List, Black Sabbath, and Cowboy Bebop.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Dogville is quite good though.

So? Tell your friends. Write on your blog. No one here is interested.


Yeah sure. If your opinions are always going to be so adversarial while also utterly lacking in content, you can keep them to yourself. Once in a while, fine, but this is a serious trend and it needs to stop. For someone who supposedly knows so much about film, you're really really bad at actually explaining why you hold these extreme opinions.

I'm not entirely sure what "a serious trend" even means (is it a Batman reference? 90% of things I don't understand end up being Batman references), but OK. I will endeavor to add a bit more substance to my rants.

But Tarantino still really sucks (for reasons BTK rather explicitly goes over--probably with a lot more level-headedness than I would ever bring to the table).

But if you like, I can copy&paste my fifteen page essay entitled "The Fallacy of Quentin Tarantino" in spoiler quotes.

Count me in as a major QT fanboy. Death Proof was his only letdown. I saw Django today. Though the film does kick ass, it's not near as great as Basterds. I blame Jamie Foxx and the absence of Quentin's longtime film editor for the movie not being quite as good as I expected. Leo was pretty damn good in it but Gary Oldman would have done wonders for the film in that role. I'd the film rate slightly higher than Kill Bill Vols. 1 & 2 with those being his least efforts outside of Death Proof.

I was surprised to hear a filmmaking genius like Tarantino say Rise of the Planet of the Apes was one his favorite films. Really?!

I would be interested in reading this. I'm not too keen on what Tarantino does either, meaning taking ideas, methods, and techniques which have existed outside of Hollywood for decades, putting them in his films and presenting them to Hollywood film audiences who are completely unaware of their existence, and soaking up the the glory.
If you don't want to paste the essay in this thread, a pm would be fine as well.

I'd take a PM on that, too. Might be interesting to hear a thorough, reasoned perspective on the matter.

I got some movies for Christmas:

Don Juan Demarco
Public Enemies
Valhalla Rising
Notorious

As overwrought and silly as Tarantino gets, Pulp Fiction is still one of my favorite movies to this day. That one is just great. The other stuff - Kill Bill, Death Proof - gets pretty masturbatory and lopsided in quality, but eh, I'll always have PF so I'm fine really.

I really enjoy watching Jackie Brown. I think it has more to do with De Niro, Keaton, Greer and excellent source material than Tarantino, though.

Yeah, that's definitely one of the key issues I, and likeminded people have with Tarantino. Moronic types revering him as exhuding originality, "genius" (mentioned somewhere in the last couple posts), having "amazing dialogue" and looking very deeply and realistically into the world of crime, etc, when he hamfistingly and fumblingly rips off or references films & filmmaking techniques that have been used to far greater effect by more talented filmmakers. If people like him, fine, but perhaps educate yourself on some cinematic history before touting his films and techniques as "original" and "genius". If you enjoy his films, good for you but I'm pretty sick of seeing him take credit from more talented and actually revolutionary filmmakers, such as Jean-Luc Godard and Truffaut for example.

And yeah, i tried watching Kill Bill Vol. 1 the other day and could only stomach about two minutes before switching it off. Hadn't seen it in ~10 years. What utter schlock.

You should go snort some lines in the boys room with darkeningday. For once, I agree with Empy, not cool

I pretty much love Tarantino because of how he mixes all his influences and references with some personal flavour. It's sure annoying when people watch his movies thinking everything in there is fresh. I love watching tribute stuff, and when it's a a melting pot of elements from a broad choice of films from different genres, I think there's a possibility to make things really interesting. And I think Tarantino succeeds in that. But granted it's not for everyone. I love his long dialogues that goes anywhere, are unrelated to the plot or are masturbatory, as well as some other elements in his film. It's just very extravagant and over the top, and I think it just fits pretty damn well with the whole tribute thing. Just the idea of doing a western with Django in its title is awesome. And another thing I love from him, is that every one of his films are geared toward a particular film genre. We got gangster stuff, blackspoitation, western, kung fu/revenge, war, short segments films. And he's particularly good for the choice of songs.

Oh, and I went to see Django Unchained yesterday. Unfortunately, after a bunch of shit happening to me and some friends, we got to see the film in french... so I won't comment right now for obvious reasons (even more that Cristoph Waltz is in the film). I'll only say that Franco Nero's cameo is really awesome.

I would never call him a genius or a true original but I find all of his films (with the exception of Kill Bill and Death Proof) immensly enjoyable and entertaining. Which is why I watch movies in the first place. I'm not going to get a hate boner on because I once took a film class and now I suddenly think I'm above his hyperactive dialogue and endearing obnoxiousness.

I think Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction are decent enough. I feel that since then, his films have degenerated into really cheap feeling throwaway stuff for the most part. His first film 'My Best Friend's Birthday' (1987) I've always found pretty interesting.

^ Yeah Kill Bill and Death Proof i found immensely hard to stomach.

I don't think anyone (at least I'm not) is saying that his films couldn't be considered entertaining at some basic level, but the point some of the others are trying to make, is that as far as originality, legitimacy, and artistic merit goes, Tarantino offers none, and you don't need to have taken a film class to see that. Some may find it hard to believe, but there are people who watch movies for other reasons than the 'huh huh cool' factor, which is all Tarantino has to offer.

I'm soft of confused by the vibe of Necroticism's post because he seems to accept the notion that Tarantino isn't anything genuinely special, but at the same time, has a problem with the fact that people say something about it. I mean, it's art, man. Tarantino would be the first to claim that his movies are pieces of art, he even claimed Inglorious Basterds to be his 'masterpiece' at the end of the film, so they are going to be scrutinized, not only be Tarantino himself, but by others who actually care. This is normal, right?

The bottom line is that if someone doesn't take an active approach to trying to learn the history and understand film (or anything for that matter), then they just don't know what they are talking about, and there is nothing wrong with that if they accept it and just say, like in the post above mine that they watch movies to be entertained. That's totally fine. But at the same time, it needs to be accepted that some people just might in fact know what they talking about. It's like me with metal. I like a lot of bands, and some people say they are shit, a good example is Opeth, but you won't see me arguing that Opeth is indeed a great band because I A) don't care enough about music to pretend like it means that much to me, and B) honestly don't research my music as much as some of the others here do. If someone seems to know what they are talking about and has a different opinion than mine, my first response is to try and listen and learn, not act like a child and get offended because someone says the music I like isn't any good.


On a side note, I'm still waiting for that essay.

That's fine and dandy, but at least don't have a fucking whinge about it while making dumb as fuck assumptions like Durd just did. Tarantino is neither a genius nor terribly original, something which even Tarantino himself already openly admits. I still think that he's very good at doing what he does, and I definitely prefer some of his films to influencing equivalents by Godard and Truffaut. Sorry for breaking your balls, I guess?


What the fuck are you talking about?

I'm no fan of Tarantino - though I quite like Reservoir Dogs and have an interest in seeing Django even though I despised the pretentiousness of Inglorious Bastards and was bored to death by Death Proof - but let's be fair here. In film - just like in metal music - it's not important to be a totally original and unique snowflake, but to know how to make things work for your piece. How to combine this with that and the other to create something that resembles something from the past, but in a new way. Or perhaps even in an old way, but just done better. Being original and unique is fine, I guess, but rarely does something that strives to be that end up becoming good listening or watching.

I also think he is good at what he does. I think the lady who rings up my groceries is good at what she does too.
And Tarantino has made no films that are in any way the equivalent to what Godard and Truffaut made. If you are trying to compare the works of these film-makers by simply sitting down, watching them and asking yourself, "Which was better?" then I'm not sure what to tell you...

Perhaps equivalent wasn't the best word. What I meant to say is the films by which he is influenced and to which he pays his homages to, like Tirez sur le Pianiste and Bande à part, among a shitload of other ones that aren't even related to the two French directors. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I don't see why people have to cry about it.

I had written some long winded post about how i like what i like blah blah blah but I think the most accurate way to describe my feelings toward this current debate and why posts like the one that started all this always come off so pretentiously douchey is that people like that are what I call "movie hipsters." People with some elevated opinion of film and what makes it "good" and the bottom line... with both movies and music... is that no one gives a shit how great you think your opinions are or why you think some popular film maker/actor/musician/band that most people seem to enjoy is the worst thing to ever be witnessed by your eyes and ears... especially when it's worded in such an annoyingly snobbish way.

It's akin to metaldiscussor666 complaining about how he deleted his itunes playlist and can't get it back.

Pretty much. DoucheyFeminist literally said that he disapproves of watching movies and deciding which you liked better. That's such a huge load of pretentious, self-righteous shit.

People like movies for all sorts of reasons and you can't just boil it down to "just watching movies for fun" and "serious appreciation of art and history" - there is a lot of gray area there really, and you also can't make bold statements like



It's all relative really, and people will give you a thousand different reasons why they like a movie or why they don't like it. Films are powerful tools of connection and people, different as they are, are bound to find whatever parallels to life and lessons about life they will in films of any genre and kind...how is any one person to say, because they have a film degree, that their opinion is better than anyone else's? I'm veering dangerously close to the "opinions are like assholes" argument here, but really - movies are put out there to be judged by a public of people who will project their own feelings onto it and take away various messages from it, and whatever perceived quality, or lack thereof, you may find in the writing or directing is really arbitrary at the end of the day.

Long story short, you can't use the history of film or perceived artistic quality to try and tell people their opinions are wrong.

I like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but what really annoys me about Tarantino's movies is that he's attained this huge, HUGE following, I'd call it 'cult following' but it's probably way too big for that, while the people who heavily influenced him remain largely unknown among the teens and 20-somethings who revere him. There's nothing wrong with kingnuuuur watching Tarantino and Godard's films (and all T's other influences) and then deciding that he prefers T's works; what I have a problem with is people idolizing his films without really understanding how much they borrow from other films. It'd be like saying Pepsi is the best cola ever, without having tried Coke. It's just ridiculous.

That said, there are lots and lots of better crime films out there from far superior directors like Michael Mann (Thief, Heat), Francis Ford Coppola (not just for the obvious Godfather movies but also for greats like The Conversation), Steven Soderbergh (everyone knows Ocean's Eleven but Out of Sight was his superior work with George Clooney), Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, etc. Not trying to provide a comprehensive list, but to me Tarantino made essentially fast food crime movies, and I say that as someone who really enjoys a burger now and then. They're really tasty and sometimes you just crave the silly dialog, quirky scenes, and not much else will satisfy that craving, but in the end they're not really that nutritious. After finishing Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (the only two of his films I like much) I'm satisfied, but not left with anything particularly profound. I mean, Thief for example is a really tight character study of the titular Thief and his two major goals in life (freedom from authority and a family with a house, both dreamed up in prison) and at first they're able to coexist, but over the course of the film come into serious conflict with one another. On top of being a great crime movie with exciting heists and action, it's a fascinating look at how complex people are, capable of being defined by two separate and in some ways opposite desires, which in Thief's case ironically stem from the very same source (prison). None of T's movies leave me with anything close to that.

Out of Sight and Heat

Oh, here i was getting at how people found Reservoir Dogs really unique and realistic because of the concentration on free flowing dialogue, rather than being an action-heavy crime film and all. People have said that that's a cool, more realistic feeling crime film because of how "organic" the dialogue feels, and it's not your classic 80s action/crime movie layout. That's what i was talking about there. Obviously, i don't really agree.

EDIT: And yeah - The Conversation is fantastic. Been watching some more great Hackman recently: night Moves is a killer neo-noir, and Hoosiers (1986) with Dennis Hopper is great.