i wanna see this movie
i'm gonna too
so
Moderators: Eviltoastman, Don Eduardo, Rick Cave, judasmuppet

alright, i admit it.The Rambam wrote:Hey, I'm not the one with sticks up my ass.
Mr John wrote:You love cock.
I hate to break it to you, but that goofy-jawbone shit-for-fuck isn't reading this thread.(lingus) wrote:i thoroughly enjoyed this movie
another winner by qt
Eviltoastman wrote:Tofu is made from satan's cum and lego.
a fine criticism, none of which begins to enter my mind when im watching something he's made, or 'under siege' or 'bloodsport' for that matterEviltoastman wrote:I agree with The Rambam. Tarrantino is only different from the Wayne brothers in the IQ stakes otherwise the fucker doesn't pay homage, he doesn't reinvent, he doesn't steal, he regurgitates. He has ONE idea, snappy dialogue spoken in a voice which is paced, toned and delivered exactly the same by EVERY character. I mean MR Wolf IS Uma Thurman in Kill Bill is Samuel L Jackson in Kill Bill.
Kill Bill was only bearable up until 2/3 into the first part, after that his dialogue kills me and his direction and cinematography hurts so bad to know you've seen these cliches the first time around, less polished (with more charm for it), less framed with neon lights and self congratulatory pats on the back by the big chinned ugly cunt that Tarrantino has now become an unwatchable director. Grindhouse was unwatchable, suffering interminable dialogue repetetivitus.
Tarrantino rendered himself redundent and irrelevant three films in. His insistance on continuing has diluted the legacy of these film and I now find myself cringing each time I hear another of his characters (new or old) speak with his voice.
Tarrantino's hardcore fans are best grouped with those who indulge in Kevin Smith's work. Those who lack decent cinematic perception. Those who only watch the surface of the film. I think film lovers grew tired of these one trick ponies a long time ago.
Yes he uses parts of other films, but isn't it true to say that there are very few story types in the first place? i.e. Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction could have become love stories, with Uma's charactors ending up with their men (Travolta, Carradine) in a happy ending, but they don't. Kill Bill is a revenge story, through and through, it says exactly what it does on the tin. Pulp Fiction is a mish-mash of stories that may not be unique individually, weave a fascinating web together. I disagree that Mr Wolf is like the Bride though. Keitel's cameo is one of a Spiv, an experienced criminal, brought in to help the young gangsters when they fuck up, The Bride is a lost girl, riding on Bill's coat tails and becoming his prodige.Eviltoastman wrote:I agree with The Rambam. Tarrantino is only different from the Wayne brothers in the IQ stakes otherwise the fucker doesn't pay homage, he doesn't reinvent, he doesn't steal, he regurgitates. He has ONE idea, snappy dialogue spoken in a voice which is paced, toned and delivered exactly the same by EVERY character. I mean MR Wolf IS Uma Thurman in Kill Bill is Samuel L Jackson in Kill Bill.
It's one film divided into two, do you mean 2/3 into Kill Bill 1 (up until she goes to Tokyo, which would explain what you meant by neon lighting), or partly into part two (after the fight with Daryl Hannah)? If you mean the former, I would put that down to personal taste, as watching them back to back gives you the sense that this is a large battle/mission taking place in several disparate locations.Eviltoastman wrote:Kill Bill was only bearable up until 2/3 into the first part, after that his dialogue kills me and his direction and cinematography hurts so bad to know you've seen these cliches the first time around, less polished (with more charm for it), less framed with neon lights and self congratulatory pats on the back by the big chinned ugly cunt that Tarrantino has now become an unwatchable director. Grindhouse was unwatchable, suffering interminable dialogue repetetivitus.
I agree with you totally here. There is such a thing as a Tarantino movie, just like a Michael Bay movie or a Guy Fucking Ritchie movie. And yes, that is his middle name. These fuckers need to diversify, or have someone strip them of their cliches.Eviltoastman wrote:Tarrantino rendered himself redundent and irrelevant three films in. His insistance on continuing has diluted the legacy of these film and I now find myself cringing each time I hear another of his characters (new or old) speak with his voice.
That's a bit harsh. QT's style is to recycle (very noble in contemporary times, no?Eviltoastman wrote:Tarrantino's hardcore fans are best grouped with those who indulge in Kevin Smith's work. Those who lack decent cinematic perception. Those who only watch the surface of the film. I think film lovers grew tired of these one trick ponies a long time ago.
not to be a jerk, butMr John wrote:Eviltoastman wrote:It's one film divided into two, do you mean 2/3 into Kill Bill 1 (up until she goes to Tokyo, which would explain what you meant by neon lighting), or partly into part two (after the fight with Daryl Hannah)?
Jeff's friend with tourette's wrote:"I'm sorry you're crying! You're ugly and that's why your boyfriend doesn't love you!"
General Tso s Chicken wrote:how where the mrs. puals crates today , cold ?
There's always those times when you get sucked in unwillingly, out of human curiousity.Thunder Bear wrote:Reading that text (and others) Im a little surpised by the amount of Tarantino knowledge all the Tarantino haters has got.
I hate the band Eyebrows. Yet I dont analyze all their songs, compare them to each other, find typical trademarks in their songs, check out unreleased meterial from before they became famous, read interviews with the band to learn what Noel did before he formed the band, and who his musical inspirations are, and then do research on the inspirations, etc etc...
Nah man, my time is precious. If I dont like something, I stay away from it.