Little Bitch

“The tragedy of Tarantino is that he could have been so much more than the Schlock and Awe merchant that he has devolved into,” writes London Independent columnist Johann Hari. “If he had stopped mistaking his DVD collection for a life, he — to borrow a phrase from a real film, etched with real pain — could’ve been a contender.

“When I remember the raw force of Reservoir Dogs, I still hope that he will. It’s not too late. He could do it. How about it, Quentin? Step out into the big world beyond celluloid, and use your incredible talent to tell stories about it. As Mr. Blonde says, ‘Are you going to bark all day, little doggie — or are you going to bite?'”

I was writing post-Jackie Brown comedown pieces like back in ’98 and ’99. It’s hard to think of ’99 as ten years ago but it was. In any event, as I mentioned yesterday, I don’t have a crying need to keep the Tarantino/Inglourious Basterds hate going but Hari’s piece is well written and I like the ending and…what am I making excuses for? Because of the scolding stridency of the pro-Basterds brigade. Well, they’d better grim up and deal with reality. In a way the folks who shouted “FAIL” after Inglourious Basterds premiered at Cannes are like the French resistance. They’ve gone underground since it opened big last weekend, but they’re still holding meetings and planning stealth attacks.

  • markj

    Reservoir Dogs is still his best film, by far. One of the most powerful cinema experiences i’ve ever had. But that was 17 years ago, Tarantino was firing from his gut, trying to escape his video shop day job, dreaming big. Thiings are different now. He has everything he ever wanted. He’s not young anymore. We’ll never see a film as vital as Reservoir Dogs again.

  • storymark

    “I don’t have a compelling need to keep the Tarantino/Inglourious Basterds hate going”

    Sure fooled us, then.

  • George Prager

    Tarantino is 46, which is the same age Sidney Lumet was when he made LAST OF THE MOBILE HOT SHOTS.

  • Floyd Thursby

    Just imagine if Eddie Murphy was in the film my hommies call IBast.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    Here we go again.

    Jesus.

    IB is a damn-close return to 90s form for Quentin. Sure, it’s flawed, but it’s also pretty masterful, tight stuff (both writing and directing).

    I reckon it’s the 4th-best film he’s ever done. And given his filmography, what on earth is wrong with that??

  • Jonah

    IB is a terrific film. No amount of piling on will change that.

  • bildeaux

    For a movie the critics don’t like, there sure is an awful lot of talk going on about it….

    b.

  • vansmith

    As movie viewers we’re better for having QT. He had a few great pictures in him and he made them, everything else he’s done is still better than most of stuff his genre has generated. The critic is there to jump up and down and stomp his feet in a psuedo passionate rage about why a guy did this or doesnt do that, give it a rest already. Look i bet QT has had hundreds of ideas and half done scripts that would have been WORSE than the stuff he actually made.

  • corey3rd

    nobody gives a crap about movies from your life anymore. Nobody cares. Did anyone say “Transformers 2″ could have been soooo much better if I felt Michael Bay’s life in it.

    It’s easier to walk into a movie producer’s office and declare how your film is like 14 other titles. it’s easier to tell the DP that you want the shot to look like a certain film.

    Even Marley and Me was Old Yeller 2.

    Movies right now are roller coasters. People just want thrill rides that put a new twist on their favorite formulas.

  • p.Vice

    Jeff, you need to grim up and deal with reality. District 9’s ruinous effect on movies will be felt long after everyone has forgotten about this meaningless trifle. You’re seriously dropping the ball here.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Well, in this video, he correlates himself to Brando, so maybe he *is* a contender.

    http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/27/votd-quentin-tarantino-reviews-there-will-be-blood/

  • C is for cookie

    When you like the director, it means he or she is an auteur. When you don’t like the director, it means he or she keeps dragging out the same old tired shit.

    People used this lethargic zombie thinking to trash Capra in the ’40’s, Hitchcock in the ’60’s, and Scorsese in the 80’s and 90’s.

    This is the same old tired shit from critics. Let’s see something new. Let’s get our heads out of the collective asses of Bazin, Kael, and Cahiers duCinema and come up with a new way of reading films, a new form a film criticism, something that pulls from the well of something other than regurgitation of the same old boring theory.

    How about it?

    Critics see the “glass of milk” or “strudle” scenes in Inglorious Basterds and read them through the filter of someone who has seen all these movies Tarantino is riffing on and they feel annoyed at knowing the source. A viewer who may not know (or is willing to indulge the director a little) the “hommage” will read this — and, narratively within the movie this is how these scenes work — as some fun little cat and mouse scenes. You gonna send Budd Boetticher out to the woodshed just because he framed his shots from within the frame of a wagon wheel in more than one movie?

  • michael

    Jeff, the problem is very simple at it’s core. The reason you, Denby and so many other critics and movie lovers are so unrelentingly pissed off at Quentin Tarantino is that he makes the movies that he want to, not the movies that you want him to. Everybody fell over themselves blowing him after RD and Pulp and then everyone had this idea of what his career would and should be and the kinds of films that he would and should make, based on the promise of those early films. But, see Quentin didn’t do that. He didn’t make the films that the elitist people thought he should, he just started (or kept on) making the movies that he wanted to make. IB was a story I remember hearing about after Jackie Brown came out as a possible ‘next’ feature for him, but he kept it in a drawer and nobody ever saw it. What happened though was that we all spent the past 15 years imagining what a Tarantino WW2, man on a mission film would be like. We all had it written, shot and released in our minds, but what Tarantino actually wrote, shot and released wasn’t anything like what we thought it would and should be, so then, he is OBVIOUSLY wasting his talent. The only problem with this is that Quentin could give a flying blue fig what we all thought IB was going to be. He just made what he always makes: A film that he wants to see, shot through with all the things that he loves. He’s been doing that since the very start, and sometimes the elitist love him for it (RD,PF) sometimes they tolerate it (JB, KB) and sometimes they hate it (DP). Through it all, and without fail, Quentin doesn’t seem shaken, moved, or to really give a damn either way, and THAT is what really pisses off the so called movie gods….it’s that he is unmoved and uncaring about whatever decree the elitist critics say. As Burt Reynolds once said in front of Siskle and Ebert on Johnny Carson, “those who can, do…those who can’t review”. Quentin can and does and he’s been doing the same thing for close to twenty years: He’s been making the movies he wants to. I, and a great number of people happen to like them, others do not. He’s not going to change what he does to please me, you or anyone else. When and if he gets tired of making these kinds of films, he’ll change, grow or whatever, but until then, you’re all just, to use an old saying, pissing in the wind.

  • anonymous2

    p.Vice- What is District 9’s ruinous effect on movies? I think I missed that amongst all the Basterds bashing.

    Please let me know. I’m interested.

  • nightheat

    Again – no discussion on the ideas put forth, just outright dismissal. Typical QT fanboys.

    I liked IB actually, but I don’t feel its a masterpiece, it’s merely a passable film… the reason critics are arguing about it is Tarantino borrows so much from film history and film theory and always makes muddled pop art trash that ultimately is meaningless/superficial/intellectual garbage… he gives the critics a lot to chew on and has a populist flair for average film goers (i.e. you) to feel smart/part of the discussion/hip/ect… You’re not. Sorry.

    but the point of the article written by Johann is that, Tarantino’s schtick is not enough to be considered one of the great filmmakers (which is what most of you complaining think). Tarantino is not one of the greats, IB is not the best film of the year, and its fact.

  • Jonah

    “Tarantino’s schtick is not enough to be considered one of the great filmmakers (which is what most of you complaining think). Tarantino is not one of the greats, IB is not the best film of the year, and its fact. ”

    If it’s a fact, you can prove it.

    I’ll be waiting.

    I’m assuming you already know the difference between fact an opinion.

  • Mr. Buckles

    It’s movies like Kill Bill (which I liked) that give birth to truly brave and challenging work like Funny Games.

    There’s nothing to talk about really after a QT movie anymore save for the individual set pieces and how cool they are. A movie like FG gets into your head and stays there and challenges you forever.

  • chris7crows

    I don’t think anyone has claimed that Tarantino is “one of the greats,” or that “Basterds” is an unalloyed piece of brilliance. Hell, I think the Coen Brothers are far better filmmakers than Tarantino and they’ve got a pretty mixed bag of films as well.

    At least from a survey of the messages posted on the topic, the people who dislike the movie seem far more vehement then everyone else.

    And I would also like to hear how D9 is going to destroy filmmaking after it managed to survive “Wolverine,” “Star Trek,” “Terminator 4,” “Transformers 2″ and “GI Joe.”

  • michael

    Nightheat, I am not blindly overlooking any faults with IB or any of Tarantino’s films, quite the oposite. I don’t think he’s one of the great directors and never have. I am just stating that he continues to make the kinds of films that he always has, which is just the kind of movie that he likes. There was a movement in mid 94 that annointed him the next great filmmaker and since he has not followed the path that they thought he should follow and made the films they thought he should make, they’ve been getting more and more pissed off at him and twiddling on and on about wated talent, when he’s just doing the same thing he’s always done. I don’t giggle and think i’m in on the joke and that I “get” it. The fact remains that the only thing that all of his films have in common is that they are the films he wanted to make at the time he made them. Some people like them, I count myself among those people, but I just enjoy them because they are, their artistic merit aside, unlike any other film that comes out in the year they do. If that makes me an Eloi, a dumbass or a bottom dweller, then please proceed with your personal attacks at will.

  • http://http:://www.incontention.com Kristopher Tapley

    I watched Res Dogs for the first time in a while the other day and it holds up so well. It is an expert piece with dialogue that pops and a structure that works. It is, in so many ways, the anti-current-Tarantino.

    And the dialogue thing is what gets me. His words have always had a meandering quality, but you go back and look at the conversations in Pulp Fiction and Dogs and you see driven prose with a point, sharp, precise, not the long-winded stuff we get in Kill Bill, Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds. “Like a Virgin is about a girl getting fucked by a big dick” becomes “kinda cute, kinda hot, kinda sexy, hysterically funny, but not funny-looking guy who you could fuck.” Blah, blah, blah.

  • George Prager

    Too bad QT isn’t doing that Facebook movie. Maybe he can do a MySpace movie, or a movie about an enterprising young reporter who uncovers corruption in the kosher meatpacking industry starring Russell Crowe and Charlize Theron, co-starring Robert Duvall, Sherman Hemlsley, Shields & Yarnell, Mo’Nique, Alan Arkin, Danny DeVIto, Ann-Margaret, Mayim Bialik, Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Barbara Harris, Jeff Goldbume, Blu Mankuma, Sarah Polley…

  • anonymous2

    Mr. Buckles call me crazy but Kill Bill came out like 5+ years after Funny Games.

  • Mr. Buckles

    P.S. Also, I think there is one agent in all of this that is being overlooked in terms of how QT’s work separates out between early and later stuff, Roger Avary.

  • michael

    I will always be happy that QT spared us Leo DeCaprio as Hans Landa. That might have worked, but Christoph Waltz is amazing.

  • JeffK

    Well said, Michael.

    I’m not trying to fan any flames, but my personal take is that YES, Quentin has done virtually nothing new with this film. Long conversations about films, food, and feet, and a splash of the ol’ ultraviolence. That said, I also enjoyed the film.

    Even if QT keeps returning to the same well, does that automatically make it impossible for him to produce an entertaining film? Is Hitchcock a failure for making suspense movies his whole life? Frankly, seeing the world through QT’s eyes every three years or so is a treat for me. In a summer of brain dead robot carnage, its a huge relief to sit in a theatre and laugh about indulgent close ups of pastries and overdone accents.

    But hey, like I said, if someone hates the film, I’m cool with that. If critics hate it, so be. After all, most critics hate feel good fairy tales from far away lands that are told in short segments. Wait, what won the Academy Award last year?

  • pchu

    For me his best film is still Pulp Fiction follow by Jackie Brown and Inglorious Basterds. To me Reservoir Dogs is overrated.

    Anyway, IB is a great film, and I can’t wait to see it again. I certainly understands why people would dislike the film though.

  • hunterd

    My mentor, who wrote one of the most violent movies of the 1980s (got an X for violence from the MPAA the first time through) has an almost identical rant about QT in the wings. It’s occasionally funny to see him get so frustrated, but I mean..he’s also right, as is this article.

    IGB seemed to be reaching for some moral ambiguity. Getting the audience to cheer the Nazi slaughter then reversing it and showing as a room full of Nazis cheering what is ostensibly the same thing. But then he screws it up by turning all of the Nazis back into cartoons just before they die. And that last scene…ugh. What was the point other than, “it looks cool”?

  • lbeale

    I ,ove Jackie Brown, love Greer, Forster and Jackson, and think it’s by far his least film referential. It’s basically a caper/crime/love story, and the Elmore Leonard source material helps a lot.

  • DarthCorleone

    Funny Games was near-unwatchable and excruciating for me, and it wasn’t because it was too sadistic or too violent. It just had one single beat and no complexity whatsoever. I take that back – it does have the same sort of 4th-wall element to it that Salo, but once you get past that “cleverness,” what else is there? Anyway, I was ready for it to be over 30 minutes in.

    I’ll give you that Death Proof was long-winded, but Kill Bill and Basterds? Economical dialogue that all served a precise point. If anything – though I loved Kill Bill – I was expecting and hoping for more of Tarantino’s tangential dialogue diversions. As for Basterds, if you mean that the dialogue that served to build suspense went on too long, I’ll concede that’s your taste, but it worked for me at exactly that length.

  • JeffK

    One other thought in my head, and Wells, if you’re listening, this could easily be your next Joe Popcorn article. Go to a theater and listen to the conversations of people leaving Inglorious Basterds. Perhaps this happens a little less in LA & NYC, but in my suburban neck of the woods, I overheard a good four of five people asking if that was how Hitler really died.

  • BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey

    I was expecting the worst when I went to see IB because of articles like this that suggest QT should have developed more than he has. And I agreed with them prior to seeing IB. I mean Death Proof is his weakest and most self-indulgent movie yet.

    But to hear critics say it now is a bit baffling to me, as IB in my opinion *is* the “more” that we’ve been expecting from Tarantino. Yes, it’s got lots of characters having discussions about films, but it’s also got so much more — layer upon layer of subtext that the readers here have been dissecting over the last week or so. And the Charlie Rose interview shows how much thought he put into it and how all the scenes that have raised the most questions were deliberately planned to do so, despite critics thinking it’s some sort of flaw in his writing.

    It’s clear why he sees it as his masterpiece because it probably is. It’s a massive leap forward for him post-DP and it is the best film of the year. I enjoy all his other stuff but for me this is the mutt’s nuts and it’s weird that critics are still seemingly missing out on it all in their attempt to bash him. It’s so good! I dunno, I just don’t get the hate. But there you go.

    I was wavering from the Tarantino bandwagon but now I’m firmly back on it.

  • Circumvrent

    I thought DiCaprio had been in talks for Zoller, which I think he could’ve nailed (not to say the current Zoller isn’t fantastic either).

  • mccool

    Who the fuck is David Denby? I honestly dont know….I love movies; I couldn’t give two fucks what some angst-ridden failed-writer critic thinks about them. Who the fuck is Johann Hari???? Seriously. I know who Jeffrey Wells is, but that’s only because I stumbled across him on Mr. Showbiz ten years ago.

    Johann Hari lamenting what Tarantino might have been? Denby and Wells speaking for gods who didn’t see them fit to be graced with the gifts of writing or directing movies. Really entering mocking territory.

    I get that one doesnt need to be a great auteur to appreciate art, just as one does not need to be a great chef to appreciate food … but you damn well better be a great chef if you’re going to give a legendary chef advice. Tarantino? Legend? Glory is fleeting, yeah, but obscurity is forever. Tarantino doesnt need advice from Denby, or Wells, or Johann Hari.

  • michael

    People looking for deep meaning in IB are really reaching. It’s a fairy tale. It’s like someone telling someone else a story about WW2 who has no idea what actually happened in WW2. Your all doing backflips trying to connect the Basterds scalping of nazi’s to something deeper, but it’s just a group of guys scalping nazi’s to intstill fear into other nazi’s. It’s gurilla warfare, headgames, whatever you want to call it. It’s just a fantasy film about a group of guys and girls winning the war in a theater in Paris in 1944. That’s about as deep as it gets.

  • Geoff

    I agree with that Michael. I enjoyed the film and also understand Wells’ take on it, but I’m baffled at the people who see all these “layers” in the movie.

    In the Charlie Rose interview QT basically says that you can applaud the Nazi bat to the head scene, and also take a step back from it. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s what he said. It’s both “kosher porn” and something not that easy.

    Well, I think the average moviegoer is choosing to have fun with it. And I think Tarantino damn well intended it to be that way.

  • Deathtongue_Groupie

    Hmmm… let’s do the math real quick.

    Tarantino + Avery = RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION

    Tarantino – Avery = the rest.

    (minus also JACKIE BROWN, which is Leonard)

    Any questions?

  • BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey

    That discussion of There Will Be Blood posted above is quite interesting. At the end he admits that because TWBB was so good, he felt he had to raise his game with IB. And he did.

  • Gaydos

    Did I hear someone compare QT to Lumet? Great idea, if there’s a Chayefsky out there available to serve up another NETWORK masterpiece.

  • natsyelzom

    Jeff’s script review of Inglourious Basterds would have made for a great review of the film. It got the humour, the suspense, the entertainment, the unrealness of it all. The bizarre thing is that what’s written on the pages of that script is almost identical to what finally ended up on the screen. Plot, tone, dialogue…..everything. Jeff’s about turn on Basterds is one of life’s great mysteries and I will not rest until I have solved it. The clues are in Cannes. That’s undoubtedly where the truth of this sordid drama will be revealed.

  • Mr. Buckles

    Avary also had a hand in writing True Romance and NBKs.

  • Richard_Stone

    Tarantino is too in love with his own voice and too much of a pussy to risk and change his gimmicks and try and evolve his work as a filmmaker. I thought the Charlie Rose showed that he gives his work very superficial half-assed considerations and just goes for delusion-perpertuating tricks and juvenile shock.

    He has regressed as a filmmaker in my own view since Jackie Brown, and IB’s box-office success almost insures we’ll get more of the same classic QT tricks when he gets hungry for some more adulation and attention in a few years.

    IB wasn’t boring for a 2:23 film , but it was stupid, useless, safe and didn’t bring nothing new to the table cinematically.

    Wells, you’re fighting the good fight here.

  • Clear

    Jesus guys, Jeff will quite when you folks do. How many times are you gonna chime in – to the tune of 100 comments a pop – to say the exact same goddamn thing?

    I hate to break to all of the “QT’s never lived up to the promise of Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction” guys, but they were a fusion of a bunch of different movies too.

    Hell, I’d rather Jeff get back to raving about middlebrow crap like Funny People and the Pelham remake than read another of these threads.

  • berg
  • bozance1

    I have to agree with Jeff Wells on the bat-to-the-head scene… which seems to be the thing that turned him off so much. I think it’s very troubling, despite the fact that QT seems to set it up so that he’s commenting on our own reactions later in the film. This reflexivity in the narrative, or whatever the hell you call it, indicates the work of a master, but here it’s not enough. I still suspect QT wanted to show the Nazi’s head getting bashed in because he finds it both fun and funny. I know he argues otherwise (in interviews he says he doesn’t intend to make it easy to watch) but… I don’t believe him.
    Despite its intellectual aspirations to be a commentary on the power of cinema, and an examination of how people react to depictions of violence, this is not a Michael Haneke film. I felt it glorified the very violence it was trying to “examine.”
    So I found the movie offensive and troubling enough that I don’t know if I want to see it again. However I loved 95% of it. It is delectable. I don’t sympathize with people who say QT is full of crap. He’s more talented than most other American filmmakers. I wish I could reconcile my twisted feelings toward the film… and now I’m wondering if QT would be a little more than pleased with my reaction.

  • a1

    The thing I’d seriously like to ask Jeff is: just what irks you so much about people liking “Inglorious Basterds”? You are comparing yourself to the French Resistance, but just what the hell are you resisting?

    Take the worst of this situation, that Tarantino’s squandering his ability and that Basterds is just him dicking around and endorsing sadistic violence against principled soldiers because they’re wearing German uniforms. But take a step back and consider what you’re trying to do with your continuous fire on the matter.

    Because a film world with Tarantino’s unique voice and talent in it is a better world than one without him. For whatever flaws his movies have, he’s still manages to provide amazing scenes, great performances, and original twists on ideas from throughout film history. And unless you think the world would be better off with Tarantino not directing, then the critical and commercial success of “Basterds” has to be good for film. It means there’ll be more Tarantino movies, and even if he half-asses the next one, AFAIC it’s a much better situation than him not making movies at all.

  • a1

    To bozance1:

    Some people would have filmed the bat-to-the-head scene just so you could revel in the violence.

    Haneke would have filmed it to make people uncomfortable, because that would help him make his point about the power of cinema or people’s reactions to violence.

    Tarantino filmed the scene to make people uncomfortable, but not for any larger point. It’s because he likes to mess with people’s expectations. He wants you to revel in the situation at first, but to have the victim’s decent behavior make you start questioning your initial enthusiasm. But he doesn’t care if you forget about it after the movie, or how hard you try to connect it into a theme. He just thought it would be cool to have this “Hey, wait a minute….” undercurrent to the scene. (And the undercurrent was apparently enough to pull Jeff into the deep end).

  • jasctt

    I too recall RD as being one of hte most amazing movie watching experiences of m life. And I saw it back on shitty VHS for the first time, pan and scan and all. I was a young guy, 20 or so and I had the day off from my blue collar grind. I headed for the video store and saw it on the shelf and had remembered hearing bout in a movie magazine months before. this was back before the internet when all a young cinephile had to tide him over was Film Comment mags, Kael reviews, the Home Film Festival (anyone else do that one?). I grabbed the flick and stopped for a big, fave cheeseburger. Got home popped it in the VCR and fast forwarded to the start of the film. I have told this next part over the years but it still remains the truth. I literally had that great double cheeseburger at my mouth, ready to take a bite and then Tim Roth came on the screen, covered in blood, screaming in pain, with HK screaming back at him to be a tough guy. I was riveted. I did not take a SINGLE BITE of that burger through the whole running time of the flick. It grew cold and I was completely engrossed in this intense picture.

    PF is also a classic and maybe the better made flick, but it was all downhill from there. while I like parts of JB, it feels weaker ad weaker as time goes on and the other htingshe has done are just silly, IB included. I paid the full price last Sunday night for the late show viewing and the INCEPTION trailer was better than the whole flick (though, I agree with most of the praise for Walz, though some of this is over-the-top, too_. QT was a god for those two first films, but he lost it at the movies forever afterwards. He’s a self=parody, more so than any other filmmaker i recent memory. thanks for those first two flicks, my man.

  • cwratliff

    I have to admit I’m kind of fascinated by the journey that Jeff has gone on with this movie.

    As a script, he seemed to like it quite a bit: “Absolutely the most inauthentic, bullshit-spewing World War II movie that anyone’s ever written. And I love it, love it, love it for that… every scene is pure popcorn, pure shit-kickin’ Quentin, pure movie poontang.”

    Seeing it at Cannes, he didn’t care much for it, but still though it was “fairly engaging” and “probably too talky to lure the knuckle-draggers.”

    Then, he saw it a second time and decided he hated it. Fair enough. But now, it seems like the anti-IG fever is growing stronger every day, to the point where he can’t wait to post another critic who has a similar dislike for the movie.

    This same story, and this same material went from being “pure movie poontang” on the page to a lukewarm reaction on first viewing to the movie basically being the scourge of all cinema.

    What I don’t quite get is how, after the first viewing, you thought it was “talk, talk, talk” and that the “knuckledraggers” wouldn’t get it. And no doubt, some of the pro-IG reactions and postings by some people might be a little strident, but I actually suspect that Jeff might be the one who can’t “grim up and deal with reality.”

    A lot of people are liking this movie. A lot of them are LOVING it. And you can’t just say they’re all “knuckledraggers” or rubes or hicks or what-not. And the simple fact is that you predicted that the film was going to “choke and die” when it was finally released into theaters. Instead it’s a big hit for QT and a it has a fair amount of support from some critics and a whole lot of moviegoers. Many of whom (like me) are not automatically inclined to give Tarantino a pass and were pleasantly surprised to actually like this film.

    These anti-IG posts are interesting, though– and it’s certainly sparking a lot of debate– but the most interesting thing of all is what a complicated and continually evolving thing your own reaction to it is, Jeff. I don’t say that as a criticism– opinions are fluid things, and you genuinely seem to have gone on a journey from script to screen to reacting to the reception the film has received from critics and audiences. Each step of the way has contributed to your own reaction and colored it a slightly new shade at each juncture. You have to admit, there aren’t too many films out there where you A) love the script, B) feel ho-hum on first viewing, C) HATE it on second viewing, and D) start comparing the people who dislike the movie to the French Resistance…

  • jasctt

    cwr: It seems that Wells seems to just write off how others will react to a film, in particular, the blue collar schlubs who are the backbone of this great nation.How he feels about a given film seems secondary on his agenda, at best.

    when I saw it Sunday night, the crowd was mostly younger folks. i’m almost 37 so I guess I was among the oldest but I saw no white haired older folks and the crowd seemed to dig it, even laughing at things that weren’t all that great. Christ, eli roth was awful.

    I really think the boat has sailed for QT. Will we evr see an evolutionary leap in career the way that PTA did the TWBB? I just don’t think so. He blew his cinematic load with his first two flicks and has never recovered.

    Anyone else read that book “Killer Instinct” by that chick Jane Hamsher or whatever her name is? She said that QT wrote this script called THE OPEN ROAD, which held the stories for RD, TR and NBK. She said he bastardized it for tose flicks. I just think he had a couple great stories in him and that was it.

  • Gordon27

    “Hmmm… let’s do the math real quick.”

    Sure, but you forgot one thing in your little equation:

    Roger Avary – QT = completely worthless output

  • Ronald McFirbank

    It’s like the whole internet is Jeff shouting “I DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE!”

  • chris7crows

    Hey, “Killing Zoe” is a fun film.

  • bozance1

    To a1:

    What you’re saying about QT’s intentions sounds about right. In that sense QT is the opposite of Haneke in a way–he goes for straight-up feelings where Haneke always has his agenda. I love them both (but I’m sure Haneke doesn’t love QT). That said, I still don’t like the bat scene, though I don’t foresee myself going all Wells on it.

  • bisonfilms

    I agree with both Jeff and Michael. Like Jeff, I saw IB and didn’t like it much. But like Michael, I respect and admire the fact that Tarantino makes the movies he wants, the way he wants to. When the vast majority of directors are just trying to be liked, or make money, or get an Oscar, or whatever. For that reason alone, Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. And that’s also the reason I really like Jeff’ stance on this movie, and his column in general. He writes what he wants. I don’t always agree with Jeff. But he’s my favorite blogger, in part because he’s write the blog he wants to write.

    Could it be possible that Wells and Tarrantino were in fact separated at birth?

  • ZayTonday

    Come on, Wells, your whole thing with this movie only being big because of the Popcorn Eloi or whatever is hilarious. This is not the kind of movie you use for such an argument, Paul Blart: Mall Cop is.

  • televisiontears

    “This is not the kind of movie you use for such an argument, Paul Blart: Mall Cop is.”

    My friends and I routinely settle arguments simply by saying “Paul Blart: Mall Cop.” It essentially means “truce”. The ultimate argument-ender.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    “I really think the boat has sailed for QT. Will we evr see an evolutionary leap in career the way that PTA did the TWBB?”

    And what exactly was this evolutionary leap in TWBB? I’m actually not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I’d like for you to pinpoint a more concrete example since you’re the one trying to make the point.

    People who are knocking Inglorious hardest (i.e. “it doesn’t represent any growth”) seem to be missing one key element that pops up again and again in IB: suspense.

    There were at least three scenes of massive suspense — the farm opening, the cafe, and especially the underground pub. Suspense on a level which I have never seen on the screen before, least of all from Quentin. Hitchcock never even did this to his audience — not to this extreme. And this was genuinely something new for QT, we’re more accustomed to being shocked (ear-slicing scene in RD) or shocked (Marvin getting his head blown off in the car in PF).

    You can talk all day about “depth” in a picture, but at the end of the day 99% of people aren’t going to care, or be able to find it on their own. And at the end of the day, I think it’s a pretty ridiculous reason to either like or dislike a movie. How many people like The Shining solely because of its undercurrent of Native American slaughter, or Kill Bill due to it being an action movie metaphor for a divorced home/broken family? Don’t get me wrong, I think these elements help increase my passion for a film upon multiple viewings, but some of you people almost seem to have a real problem with Tarantino’s flicks delivering on a “surface” level, which is sort of odd considering the medium in which he works.

    Are you guys not fans of Godard & (to a much lesser extent) DePalma, or what? I mean they basically got a lot of the same criticism — “they never take anything seriously” — leveled at them starting 50 (Jesus, has it really been that long since Breathless?) and 30 years ago, respectively. I’d say their primary interest in filmmaking is setting up certain audience expectations, then finding ways of confounding them.

    In this way, he really hasn’t changed his cinematic raison d’etre at all. He did this in Dogs and Pulp. I mean, you can say his mis-en-scene has changed from movie to movie, or his editing has progressively gotten less tight (which is something I may agree with on you on, but not for IB), but his authorial stamp is still very much present after 17 years.

    How many other American film directors can say that?

  • Geoff

    I thought The Hurt Locker had more suspense than Inglourious Basterds.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    Just the bomb-defusing scenes, or what else did you have in mind?

    I mean, I loooove The Hurt Locker, but I’m not sure how much skill it takes to suspensefully shoot a bomb-defusing sequence. I thought what Tarantino did was a lot more singular (and the suspense more unbearable), at least to my mind…

  • Gordon27

    Jeff and most of the people here who agree with him remind me of the right-wingers going to the town hall meetings. There’s no real arguing with people who are just going to keep shouting “NO!!! QUENTIN TARANTINO IS BAD!!! HIS MOVIES ARE ABOUT MOVIES!!!”

    However, I don’t mean to tar everybody with the same brush; there are reasonable criticisms of the film, a few of which have even been mentioned here. I notice that Bison seems to be presenting his opinion reasonably, for instance (not to single him out, just that I can’t be bothered to read this thread through a second time to see who else is).

    All I can say is, this site is always hilarious. Where else can you get a guy who calls ‘Duplicity’ intelligent but ‘Inglourious Basterds’ worthless? Where else can you find somebody who will actually *defend* ‘Public Enemies’ as a great movie? (Okay, that’s not just Jeff, that’s all the clueless film critics.)

  • Richard_Stone

    The suspense in IB is undone by the over-the-top interpretation of Brad Pitt for me. It might be fun, but it’s not very immersive. Although most suspense scene don’t involve him, it makes the rest of the film feel like a joke, a parody. (I’ll admit I read the script beforehand though.) No scene in IB has the suspence of the Sicilians scene in true Romance from my view.

    Another thing in IB that undoes the suspence for me: the characters don’t have to sweat to go through their story. Example: when the Basterds go to recruit Stiglitz, they just run in the prison, shoot all the guards and take off with Stiglitz. It looks like a routine, easy operation for the guys, so much that on the screen it’s more an ex-machina than an exploit of the characters that earns our sympathy.

    Also, bisonfilms: Tarantino wants to be loved, massively. Just watch him mug and flash his V on Conan, read his interviews full of self-appreciation. He does what he does, yes, but he is aware he a a critical fanbase that will adore him for his usual tricks and quirks. If we had access to a time-machine, it would be interesting to see what kind of director QT would have become if RD and PF somehow wouldn’t have made him a rock n’roll star of directing.

  • DeeZee

    markj: “We’ll never see a film as vital as Reservoir Dogs again. ”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY

    vansmith: “As [music listeners] we’re better for having [Vanilla Ice and P. Diddy].”

    Buckles: “It’s movies like Kill Bill (which I liked) that give birth to truly brave and challenging work like Funny Games.”

    Total bullshit. Movies like Funny Games were being made long before QT was even old enough to drink alcohol.

    Kristopher: “I watched Res Dogs for the first time in a while the other day and it holds up so well. It is an expert piece with dialogue that pops and a structure that works. ”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY

    anonymous2: “Mr. Buckles call me crazy but Kill Bill came out like 5+ years after Funny Games. ”

    Don’t you know? QT is so far ahead of his time that he makes Citizen Kane look unoriginal!

    a1: “Because a film world with Tarantino’s unique voice and talent in it is a better world than one without him.”

    Um, didn’t people complain about movies getting *worse* when he returned with Kill Bill?

    jas: “PF is also a classic and maybe the better made flick,”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZKgptV4GmQ&feature=response_watch

    Gordon: “Roger Avary – QT = completely worthless output”

    Someone hasn’t seen Silent Hill or Killing Zoe.

    Kane: “but his authorial stamp is still very much present after 17 years.

    How many other American film directors can say that?”

    Too many, which is the problem with the industry nowadays.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    I think the Basterds stuff is mostly the lighter & cinematic side of the story (which accounts for problems some people have with the violence), whereas the Shosanna thread (which is really the heart of the film, IMHO) is more suspenseful & realistic.

    I don’t feel these two parts of the film ever quite gel, so as a result you get a film that feels maybe a little less seamless than RD or PF. I like both “styles,” and for the most part they seem to co-exist and succeed at what they do.

    But it does exude a slightly schizophrenic vibe. I think this is a legitimate (minor) criticism of the movie.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    “Too many, which is the problem with the industry nowadays.”

    Yes, too many true auteurs. That is definitely the only problem with Hollywood. *crickets*

    Start naming names, psycho.

  • Mr. Buckles

    DZ – are you playing dumb or are you just dumb? Which is it?

    I said that films LIKE Kill Bill are what inspire more challenging ones like Funny Games. You see… like is just associative but not directly so; meaning chronology is not as important, that it simply means that movies like that – that so casually use violence – inspire films LIKE Funny Games which are far moire challenging and meditate on the meaning of violence and how it is pumped up in all media and our role in consuming it. It was a general point.

    If I wanted to say that Kill Bill inspired Funny Games, well, that is what I would have written. Got it.

    You missed the point entirely. F for reading comprehension.

  • Gordon27

    “Gordon: “Roger Avary – QT = completely worthless output”

    “Someone hasn’t seen Silent Hill or Killing Zoe.”

    A perfect example; QT haters are so quick to leap on ‘Killing Zoe'; it’s even more unwatchable now than it was when it came out. And ‘Silent Hill’? Wow, did we get the real DZ back, because the fake one could never have been that stupid.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    KZ is indeed a pretty odd example.

    Now there is a film that I’d argue is more in love with itself (including the dialogue, which is definitely subpar when compared to the sole Tarantino-penned scripts) than anything QT has done, including DP.

    Having said that, I really do have a soft spot for Rules of Attraction. Very well-directed film. But adapted material, of course.

  • Ronald McFirbank

    There Will Be Blood isn’t a great evolutionary leap. It’s one great performance, some great period atmosphere… and a desperate lack of a story as compelling as its inspiration, East of Eden.

  • BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey

    “But it does exude a slightly schizophrenic vibe. I think this is a legitimate (minor) criticism of the movie.”

    I think it actually benefits it to have the different tones of each chapter. The juxtaposition of the Basterds having a grand old time killin’ Nazis, with Shosanna for whom it’s a genuinely tragic revenge story. I liked it.

    BTW, Kaned, your IB defence over the last week has been pure aces. Good stuff, some proper good posts. Cheers.

  • BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey

    Also: does anyone suspect that Hari wrote the article in the initial post before actually seeing the film? It sounds exactly like what most of us were posting before we all saw it. And it doesn’t really offer much in the way of analysis of IB; merely rehashed ideas about Tarantino. Dismal stuff from an increasingly bland paper. If the Independent dies in the next decade it only has itself to blame.

  • ZayTonday

    “My friends and I routinely settle arguments simply by saying “Paul Blart: Mall Cop.” It essentially means “truce”. The ultimate argument-ender.”

    It’s the Godwin for movies huh

  • DeeZee

    Mr. Buckles: Um, the only movies I’ve seen Kill Bill inspire is dreck like Saw and Hostel.

    Kane: “Yes, too many true auteurs. ”

    Yep. That’s why you get jerk-off bullshit like Eternal Sunshine and A History of Violence.

    Gordon: “QT haters are so quick to leap on ‘Killing Zoe'; it’s even more unwatchable now than it was when it came out. ”

    It’s watchable enough for Nolan to borrow from it for TDK.

    “And ‘Silent Hill’? Wow, did we get the real DZ back, because the fake one could never have been that stupid.”

    I guess you proved my point about not seeing it.

    Kane: “including the dialogue, which is definitely subpar when compared to the sole Tarantino-penned scripts”

    That’s because it’s not about the dialogue, but about the set-up and the story. Jeff’s being proven right about the fan-base for QT, which is that it’ll watch anything by him, if he can pad it with pointless commentary. Shit, he should just read out of the phone-book in his next movie for 90 minutes so you losers can get off right there.

  • chris7crows

    Got to tell you Dee Zee, I think you’re mistaking the fact that Nolan was referencing “Dog Day Afternoon,” which also happened to be what “Killing Zoe” was referencing since it’s something of the ur-bank heist film.

    I did see “Silent Hill.” Twice. I like Christopher Gans, “Brotherhood of the Wolf” is a personal favorite, and I already mentioned that I like “Zoe.” And yet, “Silent Hill” is still a misfire. Well intentioned, and it has some brief moments, but overall a total mess.

    Also, no love for “Kill Bill”? You have no song in your heart.

  • DeeZee

    chris: I liked Kill Bill when it was called Lady Snowblood.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    Forget a song in his heart, the guy doesn’t even have a cell in his brain.

    “Shit, he should just read out of the phone-book in his next movie for 90 minutes so you losers can get off right there.”

    Yet a loser like you will put in the time reading the script for IB, why exactly? So you could come in here and rip the dialogue on the page without even seeing how it’s delivered onscreen?

  • Anonymous Bosch

    Judging by DZ, it looks like QT gets exactly the fans he deserves.

  • chris7crows

    DeeZee: Who cares if it’s a reframing of “Lady Snowblood”? I can like them both in the same way that I like both “Le Samourai” and “The Killer.”

  • mccool

    ok, so i googled denby. I won’t say what he and Wells have in common (references to such usually get you banned around here), but let’s say delusions of being an authority of hip and cool is common in their, uh, bracket. These bombastic fellows have–I’ve gotta be careful here–matured to the point where they feel their opinion should go unquestioned …. what with all their experience and world weariness and all. They can’t handle or come to grips with the fact that they’re losing touch, and resort to appealing to a higher authority and belittling anyone with an alternate viewpoint. Indignation as a response to a differing opinion about art (art, especially) is, as someone mentioned above, an extremely un-enlightened, entrenched, unworldly attitude. Ironically, it’s quite morlock-y. But then Wells is a closet conservative, so why is this surprising?

    Back to the point … Time is running short for them to achieve immortality and it’s easier to throw stones at an immortal. Being in close proximity to something hip by attacking it…inserting themselves in the conversation….it’s the only way to stay relevant.

    Hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is. Live by it, or give into it.

    As for the guy above who said Tarantino is a pussy….well, people who comment on obscure entertainment blogs aren’t pussies at all. At least, they’re braver than those who take the huge financial, emotional, and artistic risk of putting the end result of thousands of hours of work on display for the world to see.

    Fuck, I’m not even a Tarantino fan … the guy looks more and more like a cross between Jaws and David Gest by the week. He is self-indulgent and a lot of criticisms are valid … but his place in pop culture and film history is secure. This is all getting a bit crazed.

  • ZayTonday

    DeeZee: I liked “For A Fistful Of Dollars” when it was called “Yojimbo” too.

  • Ronald McFirbank

    Here’s a good piece talking about what all the “It’s just a Nazi lark movie about other movies” crowd missed by only watching the surface of the movie:

    http://reason.com/news/show/135691.html

  • Jonah

    “Tarantino + Avery = RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION

    Tarantino – Avery = the rest.

    (minus also JACKIE BROWN, which is Leonard)

    Any questions?”

    I’d take Kill Bill, Jackie Brown (which isn’t just Leonard) and IB over Rules of Attraction, Killing Zoe, Silent Hill any day of the week.

    Funny how you only remembered the convenient part of the equation.

  • ZayTonday

    I can’t wait for Basterds to hold its #1 spot this weekend so we get more Joeloi SixCorn posts.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    “I can’t wait for Basterds to hold its #1 spot this weekend so we get more Joeloi SixCorn posts.”

    Secretly, neither can Jeff. Bitch as he may about IB, but Quentin’s been very good to this site lately. Everything he posts about the divisive film has been on the doorstep of triple-digit comments, if not outright over that threshold.

  • DeeZee

    chris: At least The Killer was a different movie.

    Zay: I was bored by both movies, but I’m glad Kurosawa got his money from Leone. That was probably not the norm back when white artists could legally steal music from black singers without paying them a cent.

    Jonah: I’ll take Rules of Attraction, Killing Zoe, and Silent Hill over Death Proof, Four Rooms, and From Dusk Til Dawn.

  • arturobandini2

    Well, the passion with which you have all written about IBs convinced me to catch an evening show tonight. (That and the 100+ degree heat in L.A.) I’d decided against seeing it because I find Tarantino’s personality so toxic, but there’s something to be said for any movie that inspires this kind of debate. For the record, there were only about 20 people in the theater. Most were 13-year-old boys and some moms.

    I kinda don’t know where to jump in. I found it a little better than mediocre, not violent enough to be really offensive, nor entertaining enough to hold my attention for 2 1/2 hours. The stuff that worked was great (the stiletto leg cast was a funny bit), but well over 50% of it was tedious. As someone posted earlier, there’s a repetition to the beats of each of Waltz’s scenes, as well as the one in the pub basement, that become irksome quickly. QT kept riffing on variations of the same scene instead of fleshing out any of the characters. I learned absolutely nothing about most of the Basterds, except for their names. Everyone else was two-dimensional at best, even Shoshanna. (Was spelling it ‘Shosanna’ in the main titles a typo? Or was it intentional, like ‘Basterds’?) You never really care when characters die in a Tarantino movie. They don’t seem like real people, just chess pieces the director toys with before discarding. It usually helps to have at least one character in a movie who resembles a human being.

    Thing is, there’s a pretty good movie in IBs, if QT had just let the editor shape or mold it. Shoshanna’s story should’ve been the ‘A’ plot, not the Basterds. Once Waltz’s M.O. was established in his first scene, his subsequent scenes should’ve been more elliptical. (His penultimate scene with Pitt completely killed whatever momentum the cinema climax had going for it.) The music cues were in the right places, but the spaghetti music got jokey. The Bowie song was OTT and, had I been Tarantino’s editor, I would’ve begged him to reconsider that whole montage. The final coda with Waltz and Pitt was absurd and all of Waltz’s actions were totally out of character. Get rid of all this self-indulgent shit and you have a tight, energetic, thrilling, funny action movie with a great meta-movie ending. I do credit QT with holding a mirror up to the audience, even though I don’t think his core audience realizes it.

    I guess I just don’t understand the uber-love for this movie. Anybody see Verhoeven’s Black Book a couple years ago? It was more clever, suspenseful, sexy and rhythmic than IBs, with a similar plot and running time. I don’t recall anyone on HE doing cartwheels over that movie. Waltz was great, yes, but he had nowhere to go with his character. For me, his performance was less memorable than the government psychos in In the Loop. The love I’m hearing for IBs reminds me of the jubilation co-workers felt for the first Charlie’s Angels movie when it first came out. There was just no arguing with them that Charlie’s Angels was *not* a movie for the ages. In other words, if this gets a nomination for Best Picture, then extending the category nominations to ten was a woeful decision.

    A final observation, FWIW: Leaving the theater, the 13-year-olds were in complete rapture, like they’d just had their first orgasm. Seriously, a new generation of filmmaking dweebs has just been born.

  • Jonah

    ” I’ll take Rules of Attraction, Killing Zoe, and Silent Hill over Death Proof, Four Rooms, and From Dusk Til Dawn. ”

    There are two good movies in that list. Rules of Attraction and From Dusk Till Dawn. Rules is probably better but I couldn’t get through the second viewing. Fucking boring.

    Dawn is a fun film. Completely rewatchable.

    Killing Zoe is unwatchable. Silent Hill was horrendous. Four Rooms was an abortion. Death Proof, like Rules of Attraction, was good the first time but is terrible on the second viewing.

    Unlike you DZ, I don’t tie myself down to hating or liking a filmmaker so much that I can’t see beyond that when assessing the quality of their films.

    I think Michael Bay is the worst thing to happen to mainstream action films pretty much ever. But a couple of his films aren’t so bad

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”

  • DeeZee

    arturo: “For the record, there were only about 20 people in the theater. Most were 13-year-old boys and some moms.”

    That’s a pretty wretched turn-out for a movie that’s supposed to make as much as $80-$100 million. :)

    “A final observation, FWIW: Leaving the theater, the 13-year-olds were in complete rapture, like they’d just had their first orgasm. Seriously, a new generation of filmmaking dweebs has just been born.”

    You should have name-dropped Johnny Got his Gun and Slaughter-house Five before you left, so they knew what they were missing..

    Jonah: “I think Michael Bay is the worst thing to happen to mainstream action films pretty much ever. But a couple of his films aren’t so bad”

    The only movies associated with QT which I can stand are Sin City and Planet Terror. Bay’s a hack, too, which is probably why Transformers 2 is the big-budget equivalent of IB. And the only shit of his which I’m willing to bet is tolerable are the slasher remakes he just produced. Seriously, the two are generally better when they let real talent direct and stop wasting my time being featured in interviews involving their pads. But the only way to get them out of the spotlight simultaneously is to have them collaborate on the next Waterworld/Battlefield Earth, which, considering their egos, isn’t impossible.

  • fredderf

    The French resistance….you’re so cute Jeffrey. I really like you. Don’t ever change. Hit it on the nail.

  • Jonah

    “That’s a pretty wretched turn-out for a movie that’s supposed to make as much as $80-$100 million”

    I thought you said it would only make 40.

    “The only movies associated with QT which I can stand are Sin City and Planet Terror. ”

    Which proves your lack of good taste.

    ” Bay’s a hack, too, which is probably why Transformers 2 is the big-budget equivalent of IB. ”

    Yeah, they’re almost identical in nature.

    “And the only shit of his which I’m willing to bet is tolerable are the slasher remakes he just produced. Seriously, the two are generally better when they let real talent direct and stop wasting my time being featured in interviews involving their pads. But the only way to get them out of the spotlight simultaneously is to have them collaborate on the next Waterworld/Battlefield Earth, which, considering their egos, isn’t impossible. ”

    What in the fuck?

  • Deathtongue_Groupie

    Jonah – how convenient that you forget we are discussing QT’s output, not Avery’s. Jesus, the stupidity of trying to win a debate with BS logic like that makes me wonder why I tried in the first place…

  • Jonah

    Dude, I know you’re a smart guy, but I can’t see how you’re missing my point.

    you were implying, were you not, that without Avery’s help QT isn’t all that special a talent.

    If I have that wrong, correct me.

    But If I have that right, my point makes sense. Roger Avery, on his own without QT, hasn’t done anything great. In fact, most of his output is completely forgettable. QT has done Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and IB.

    It stands to reason that QT was the more talented of the two.

  • Deathtongue_Groupie

    Again, when it comes to this discussion, who gives a flying fuck what Roger Avery has done on his own? This is about Tarantino without someone to shape his output.

    Think Bogdanovich after Polly Platt.

  • Rothchild

    A week ago DeeZee said it wouldn’t make 40. Then it definitely wouldn’t make 60-80.

    And now…

    He’s already changed it to 80-100. He thinks no one will notice.

  • Jonah

    I guess if you still don’t see it, you never will.

    For my taste, Tarantino has done just fine without Avary.

    I think Dogs is his most overrated film. True Romance is brilliant, but so much of that is the performances.

    Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and IB are all better in my opinion than Dogs. And JB and IB aren’t too far behind Pulp Fiction.

    So I guess what I’m saying is, maybe Avary didn’t help Tarantino as much as Tarantino made Avary relevant. Avary without Tarantino ain’t shit, but Tarantino without Avary is still pretty damn good, even great at times.

    I guess it all depends on which films you like the most.

    Again, if you still don’t see the relevance of what Avary has done on his own then I will consider taking back my comment about you being smart.

    Don’t make me do that.

  • Deathtongue_Groupie

    If you think that anything Tarantino has done equals or surpasses PULP FICTION, I’m not holding my breath on your opinion regarding my “smarts” Especially if you cant grasp the Bogdanovich reference.

  • Jonah

    Grasped the reference. It’s not relevant.

    If you can show me where I said anything Tarantino has done equals or surpasses Pulp Fiction I’d be surprised. I think I made it very clear that Pulp is his best film. It’s the film that means the most to me, and it is his masterpiece.

    And I never said anything different than that.

    It’s really sad that you don’t see the relevance of Avary’s post Tarantino career. My niece is in first grade and I’m sure I could explain it to her so she understood.

    One more try. You tried to say that Tarantino without Avary is not nearly as good as T with A. Therefore implying that Avary was some major talent that contributed greatly to Tarantino.

    Fair enough. You can make that connection if you think Dogs, Pulp, True Romance, NBK are the highlights of Tarantino’s career. You can also make that connection if you believe that Avary is talented. Based on his post Tarantino work, I don’t think he’s all that talented. Therefore, I don’t think he helped Tarantino as much as you do.

    If you think Zoe and Rules and Silent Hill are fucking amazing, you might have a different opinion than I do.

    At the same time, other than Pulp, I think Tarantino has been much better in the days after Avary. IB, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill are all better films than Dogs and NBK and are as good as True Romance.

    I think I had you mixed up with somebody else regarding your smarts. There are a few user names around here I get mixed up. Clearly, you were one of them.

    Jesus Christ are you fucking playing the part of DZ or something?

  • DeeZee

    Jonah: “I thought you said it would only make 40.”

    I thought you said it would make 60 by Wednesday.

    “Which proves your lack of good taste.”

    So Rourke=bad taste, but no-name actresses who talk about QT”s imaginary sex life for 90 minutes=good taste?

    “Yeah, they’re almost identical in nature. ”

    In terms of shit, they’re identical.

    “What in the fuck?”

    I’m alluding to the Chainsaw and Friday the 13th remakes.

    “I think I made it very clear that Pulp is his best film.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZKgptV4GmQ&feature=response_watch

    “Roger Avery, on his own without QT, hasn’t done anything great.”

    Perhaps, but he’s managed to do more interesting and original shit than QT.

    “For my taste, Tarantino has done just fine without Avary.”

    Roth: A week ago, everyone said it was bombing, and then that it would surpass PF; and now they’re not sure if it’s not just a one-week wonder.

  • matt cousens

    DeeZee says some of the stupidest shit…It blows my mind.

  • Steven Kar

    Looks like IB is on its way to a $111 million domestic gross. And I think it’ll manage at least that much abroad.

    IB’s impressive BO and critical praise have washed QT’s Grindhouse sins away.

    I was expecting to hate, I was expecting it to be a long, boring mess of a movie, but I was pleasantly surprised after I watched it in a packed theatre of people who seemed to be into it.

    I’m thinking of seeing it again.

  • Ronald McFirbank

    Arturo, I respect your taking it seriously, and I don’t mean that Tarantino’s film is anywhere near as good as the movie I’m about to cite, but reading your inventory of the movie’s flaws, I couldn’t help but hear something like this:

    “None of the astronauts have any personality but the computer, he’s the only human character in the movie… it turns space into this boring, commercialized place, taking all the magic out of it… you never find out who the monolith is and what they want…”

  • Ronald McFirbank

    Avary is the Marshall Brickman of Tarantino’s career. Having him around seems to have made him a sharper writer, but you sure can’t tell why based on what he’s done on his own.

  • Jonah

    “I thought you said it would make 60 by Wednesday. ”

    I said it might. It’s right on the edge of 60 now. It’ll likely pass 70 on Sunday at the latest. With the long weekend it’ll approach 80 this week, maybe even pass it

    “So Rourke=bad taste, but no-name actresses who talk about QT”s imaginary sex life for 90 minutes=good taste?”

    I have no idea what this means. At all.

    “In terms of shit, they’re identical.”

    Nope.

    “Perhaps, but he’s managed to do more interesting and original shit than QT.”

    Rules of Attraction was based on a book. Silent Hill was a videogame adaptation. Beowolf, well, not exactly an original, is it Seems that guy is out of ideas and needs to rely on others.

    “Roth: A week ago, everyone said it was bombing, and then that it would surpass PF; and now they’re not sure if it’s not just a one-week wonder. ”

    Nobody but you said it was bombing. Your little game isn’t working. You predicted 40, you lost. You then said no way in hell it would reach 60-80, it’ll surpass 60 on Saturday. Then you said it’ll never make 80-100.

    I’m not predicting 100, but it’ll easily make between 80-90 in its full run.

  • chris7crows

    “chris: At least The Killer was a different movie.”

    “Lady Snowblood” — movie or manga — is at best the inspiration for the Oren Ishii chapters of “Kill Bill,” but certainly not a template for the whole movie.

    Whereas John Woo has said in multiple interviews that “The Killer” is more or less a remake of “Le Samourai,” and based on viewings of both, it’s hard to argue the point (which is not to say that each film doesn’t bring something unique to the table).

    And you don’t like either “Fistful of Dollars” or “Yojimbo”? Now you’re just being contrary.

    OTOH, not just why there’s so much hate for Avary. I think he made undeniably important contributions to some early Tarantino films, and has since made some interesting — if not groundbreaking — movies on his own. But “Silent Hill” was definitely the weakest of the bunch.

  • DeeZee

    Kar: “Looks like IB is on its way to a $111 million domestic gross. And I think it’ll manage at least that much abroad.”

    Where’d you hear that? It’s already #3 this weekend.

    “IB’s impressive BO and critical praise have washed QT’s Grindhouse sins away.”

    No, they’ve just highlighted the sins of QT’s fan-base. They’re like Star Wars fans after Phantom Menace.

    Jonah: “I have no idea what this means. At all.”

    Making fun of Death Proof. It was basically QT imagining himself in an alternate reality where he was a chick.

    “Nope.”

    Both make movies which are too long. Bay just does it with CG, while QT does it with dialogue.

    “Rules of Attraction was based on a book. Silent Hill was a videogame adaptation. Beowolf, well, not exactly an original, ”

    And QT’s movies are remakes while Jackie Brown adapted another novel which he just admitted that was mostly Leonard’s work, and not his. What’s your point?

    “Nobody but you said it was bombing.”

    Are you kidding? Jeff posted an article a while back about the negative reception of IB, and how if it failed, the company was finished.

    “You then said no way in hell it would reach 60-80, it’ll surpass 60 on Saturday.”

    Still needs to make 80, though.

    “but it’ll easily make between 80-90 in its full run. ”

    Please. It had enough trouble keeping up with two horror sequels. QT’s 15 minutes are over. The guy managed to avoid a bomb by bringing in Brad Pitt, and capitalizing on those wretched political analogies between Obama’s health care program and the Nazi death camps, but this is still the end of the road for his ass. ‘Cus if it were really a hit, it wouldn’t lose second weekend to a friggin’ sequel of a remake or a fourquel to a horror series which people forgot about three years ago, especially since horror is known to do terribly in the summer.

    So the only people still watching IB are the die-hards who think QT can do no wrong, while everyone else is either ambivalent about IB, or only satisfied because it’s the same old thing they’ve come to expect from the guy. QT’s devolved into the b-horror guy studios rely on to release something cheap and low-brow enough to make some quick bucks to stop their financial hemorrhaging. He’s never going to get lumped into the category of “auteur” again.

    But even if I’m wrong, the only reason it’ll make $90 million is it’s kept in theaters longer than it actually deserves to be, rather than because people want to see it badly. Still, it had enough problems getting up to $60 million after only a week, so you’re being a lot more over-confident than me.

    chris: “”Lady Snowblood” — movie or manga — is at best the inspiration for the Oren Ishii chapters of “Kill Bill,” but certainly not a template for the whole movie.”

    Just most of the movie.

    “Whereas John Woo has said in multiple interviews that “The Killer” is more or less a remake of “Le Samourai,” and based on viewings of both, it’s hard to argue the point (which is not to say that each film doesn’t bring something unique to the table).”

    That’s why I consider Woo’s movie to be different, even if it is a remake.

    “But “Silent Hill” was definitely the weakest of the bunch.”

    For people tired of shitty video game adaptations, it was ground-breaking.

  • Jonah

    “Making fun of Death Proof. It was basically QT imagining himself in an alternate reality where he was a chick. ”

    No, it really wasn’t. But now I know what you do on Friday nights.

    “And QT’s movies are remakes while Jackie Brown adapted another novel which he just admitted that was mostly Leonard’s work, and not his. What’s your point? ”

    My point? You said that Avary’s movies were original. I proved they were not. QT’s are not remakes.

    “Are you kidding? Jeff posted an article a while back about the negative reception of IB, and how if it failed, the company was finished. ”

    By idiots that thnk they’re experts. The same types of people that thought there were WMD’s in Iraq.

    “Still needs to make 80, though. ”

    I said 60-80. That means if it made 60, which it has, I was right. It will make 80 though, by the end of this week at the latest.

    You are way past being wrong on this one, and still not man enough to admit it.

    “But even if I’m wrong,”

    You are wrong. 40 is not 60, so you were wrong.

    The rest of the stuff you said can’t be proven and is ridiculous, so I won’t comment on it.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    As usual, way too much insanity to pick apart bit-by-bit, but I’ll pick up some highlights:

    “QT’s 15 minutes are over.”

    Except he’s now been making films for well over 15 years. As far as American directors go, he’s a distinguished veteran. He ain’t going anywhere. Deal.

    “Jeff posted an article a while back about the negative reception of IB, and how if it failed”

    Keyword being IF. You just said it had ALREADY failed back in March. Wrong-o.

    “Still needs to make 80, though.”

    For what? To double the high-end of your “estimate.” Retard.

    “the only reason it’ll make $90 million is it’s kept in theaters longer than it actually deserves to be”

    You really think anyone will put any stock whatsoever in your “reasons” when the ceiling of your B.O. prediction isn’t even within $50 million of the total domestic gross?

    “The guy managed to avoid a bomb by bringing in Brad Pitt”

    Yeah, what happened with that? Just a couple weeks ago, you were saying he wasn’t a draw at the box-office…

    “Just most of the movie.”

    It’s called Kill Bill, not Kill Oren. That segment was a pretty small percentage of the overall film.

    “That’s why I consider Woo’s movie to be different, even if it is a remake.”

    But Inglourious Basterds isn’t unique?

    “For people tired of shitty video game adaptations, it was ground-breaking.”

    I would love to try to see you make an “argument” like that in real-life. Always murking things up with the shifty, internet double-speak. What the hell does this statement even mean?

  • Jonah

    Nice Citizen.

    Yeah, DZ spent about a month telling all of us how Brad Pitt was box office poison. Now suddenly he’s the reason this is a huge hit.

    As for the 15 minutes of fame, Tarantino’s been famous for 16-17 years. I don’t think DZ understands time anymore than he understands box office.

  • DeeZee

    Jonah: “But now I know what you do on Friday nights. ”

    Nah, I make fun of people defending Death Proof all the time.

    “You said that Avary’s movies were original. I proved they were not.”

    No, you just proved where the source material was from, not whether or not the directorial vision was original.

    “QT’s are not remakes. ”

    Um, IB is the same fucking title as that Italian war flick.

    “By idiots that thnk they’re experts. The same types of people that thought there were WMD’s in Iraq. ”

    There was a better probability of IB bombing than WMDs being in Iraq.

    “It will make 80 though, by the end of this week at the latest.”

    You were saying by the weekend before.

    “As for the 15 minutes of fame, Tarantino’s been famous for 16-17 years.”

    Actually, he was only really famous for about three years, while everything else since is equivalent to one of his cameos.

    Kane: “Except he’s now been making films for well over 15 years.”

    He made films he took credit for and which he was able to hide behind during the first six years. And everything else after that is either him just having his name associated with other people’s work, or directing cash-ins of other genre movies. The guy’s always been unoriginal, but now he’s just a wannabe.

    “As far as American directors go, he’s a distinguished veteran. He ain’t going anywhere. Deal.”

    He’s going to the dustbin of hack movie makers, along with Bay.

    “You just said it had ALREADY failed back in March. Wrong-o.”

    It’s still not a big hit, just a money-maker. Kill Bill’s more profitable by comparison.

    “You really think anyone will put any stock whatsoever in your “reasons” when the ceiling of your B.O. prediction isn’t even within $50 million of the total domestic gross?”

    So far, it’s only $10-$20 million off.

    “Yeah, what happened with that? Just a couple weeks ago, you were saying he wasn’t a draw at the box-office…”

    As I said earlier, he’s not a draw. But he brought in just enough people to keep IB from bombing. However, Troy’s still a bigger hit and the only one which can be considered successful solely on his name.

    “not Kill Oren. That segment was a pretty small percentage of the overall film.”

    But the original concept itself made up a larger percentage of the film.

    “But Inglourious Basterds isn’t unique?”

    It’s unique if you want a FOX News war movie.

    “What the hell does this statement even mean?”

    That it actually captured the atmosphere and suspense of its source material.

  • Jonah

    “Nah, I make fun of people defending Death Proof all the time.”

    That does sound like fun. But I’m not aware of anybody defending Death Proof here. In fact, I said it was my least favorite Tarantino effort.

    “No, you just proved where the source material was from, not whether or not the directorial vision was original. ”

    It was based on previous material. And he didn’t change it that much. So no, not original as you called it.

    “Um, IB is the same fucking title as that Italian war flick.”

    How does that make it a remake? And even if it was, as you said with Avary, the source material isn’t important.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    “There was a better probability of IB bombing than WMDs being in Iraq.”

    No, not really.

    “It will make 80 though, by the end of this week at the latest.”

    “You were saying by the weekend before.”

    No I didn’t. I said maybe. Again, you are the one that makes incorrect predictions. By the end of business on Monday you’ll be at least 30-35 million off in your prediction.

    “Actually, he was only really famous for about three years, while everything else since is equivalent to one of his cameos. ”

    Which is why there have been about 10 QT related articles on HE in the last couple of weeks and each of them have close to, or more than, 100 comments. Like him or hate him, he’s one of the most famous directors in the world. And you can’t prove otherwise.

    Jeffrey Wells posted an Avary related article the other day. How many comments did that one get? Maybe a dozen. QT is more famous than Avary, a better filmmaker, and in a much happier place.

    “So far, it’s only $10-$20 million off.”

    Yeah, only. Are you as bad at your day job as you are at predicting movie grosses?

    “As I said earlier, he’s not a draw. But he brought in just enough people to keep IB from bombing. ”

    So Pitt isn’t a draw but he’s the reason IB is making way more money than you expected? Fail.

  • chris7crows

    “For people tired of shitty video game adaptations, it was ground-breaking.”

    That’s awesome, dude. Sincerely, kudos. Next up, let’s debate the dichotomy of character versus action as exemplified by the “Wing Commander” movie.

  • DeeZee

    Jonah: “It was based on previous material. And he didn’t change it that much. So no, not original as you called it. ”

    He made the male lead a female and re-wrote the story so it tied in the first two games.

    “How does that make it a remake?”

    In the same way ‘Dollars is a remake?

    “And even if it was, as you said with Avary, the source material isn’t important.”

    Avary’s adapting an idea. Quentin is recycling an idea.

    “No, not really.”

    More people were calling it in for QT than supporting Bush.

    “By the end of business on Monday you’ll be at least 30-35 million off in your prediction.”

    I’ll still be right about him being a one-week wonder whose 15 minutes are over.

    “Like him or hate him, he’s one of the most famous directors in the world. And you can’t prove otherwise.”

    Sure I can: Grindhouse’s box office.

    “How many comments did that one get? Maybe a dozen. QT is more famous than Avary,”

    Only because he ripped off Avary’s material.

    “a better filmmaker,”

    If you like the Sky Captain style of film-making, sure.

    “and in a much happier place.”

    You mean his delusion of grandeur?

    “Are you as bad at your day job as you are at predicting movie grosses?”

    Not as bad as you at your day job of wasting time arguing with me.

    chris: “Next up, let’s debate the dichotomy of character versus action as exemplified by the “Wing Commander” movie.”

    Not until we go into the movie versions of high-brow literature such as Lord of the Rings.

  • Jonah

    “He made the male lead a female and re-wrote the story so it tied in the first two games.”

    And? That’s nothing.

    “In the same way ‘Dollars is a remake?”

    No, that doesn’t work. It’s not the same thing at all.

    “Avary’s adapting an idea. Quentin is recycling an idea.”

    You’ve got it backwards.

    “More people were calling it in for QT than supporting Bush.”

    If a lot of people didn’t support Bush, we wouldn’t be at war.

    “I’ll still be right about him being a one-week wonder whose 15 minutes are over.”

    No you won’t. It’s been 17 years, not 15 minutes. And he just had the biggest hit of his career and got mostly positive reviews.

    You just have words. I have numbers and facts.

    “Sure I can: Grindhouse’s box office.”

    Spielberg, Scorsese, M. Night have all had duds as well. They are all still famous and have been for longer than 15 minutes.

    This is where you say they’ve also had more hits.

    It doesn’t matter. Your logic is that one dud means you are no longer famous. Doesn’t hold up.

    “Only because he ripped off Avary’s material.”

    Which again, doesn’t begin to explain why Tarantino has had the far more successful career of the two. Now Avary is headed to the pokie.

    “If you like the Sky Captain style of film-making, sure.”

    Not relevant. Ignore.

    “Not as bad as you at your day job of wasting time arguing with me.”

    I’m not arguing. Arguing implies that each side has something valueable to add. I’m just playing around with your idiocy. I won this debate before it started, the moment the film passed 40 million I won.

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    Ooooh, now Quentin is making “Sky Captain” styles of film! Yes, because the use of “green screen” is a real hallmark of any Tarantino film?

    Dude, I gotta hand it to you, you’re always full of shit, but you pull out the real gems of incoherence when you get completely and utterly cornered.

    Sky Captain, LOL. Seriously, do you have a dartboard of random movie titles at home (or in your dumpster, or on Mars, wherever they hell you are actually located) that you throw at to determine what references and analogies you will attempt (and fail epically) to make on each thread?

    Sky Captain…

  • DeeZee

    Jonah: “And? That’s nothing.”

    So is changing the race of the character in Jackie Brown.

    “No, that doesn’t work. It’s not the same thing at all.”

    So they didn’t change the historical setting in both films?

    “You’ve got it backwards.”

    I’ve got it backwards, even though the only defense people have for QT is he “improves” things?

    “If a lot of people didn’t support Bush, we wouldn’t be at war. ”

    Um, there were millions of protesters of the war around the world on day 1 of the invasion.

    “No you won’t. It’s been 17 years, not 15 minutes.”

    And only six of those years had anything to do with him, rather than him cashing in on what’s popular. We’ve been over that already.

    “And he just had the biggest hit of his career and got mostly positive reviews.”

    The biggest hit of his career not having anything to do specifically with him. And the reviews were more mixed than usual, other than with the WOM.

    “Spielberg, Scorsese, M. Night have all had duds as well. They are all still famous and have been for longer than 15 minutes. ”

    M. Night’s over before he even began. His last flick only made money because of Marky Mark, and people still don’t take it seriously. Scorcese was never the kind of guy you relied on for box office hits, and The Departed is probably as big as it gets for him. And Spielberg’s only recent successes have been a poor man’s ID4 which probably only did well because of Tom Cruise, and a bad sequel which made money because it was a sequel. Not to mention he’s lowered his standards by hitching his wagon to Michael Bay. That’s not exactly the same thing as having the same name value as he did in the past, especially when it still took him a year to get funding for Dreamworks 2.0.

    “Tarantino has had the far more successful career of the two. Now Avary is headed to the pokie.”

    QT also did some time for beating up a critic. And QT’s only successful because of people like Avary. If he had to go at it alone, we’d get more movies like My Best Friend’s Birthday, and less like PF and RD.

    “I won this debate before it started, the moment the film passed 40 million I won.”

    You only won on a technicality, but not on whether you could prove that it was actually earned because of QT’s actual worth.

    Kane: “Yes, because the use of “green screen” is a real hallmark of any Tarantino film?”

    It was in Death Proof.

  • cwratliff

    Saying that QT’s “15 minutes” are up while he’s currently enjoying the biggest movie box office success of his career (a career that dates back to the early 90s, hardly making him a flash-in-the-pan) is undoubtedly one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen anyone post here.

    Having Brad Pitt certainly helped the box office, yes. But Pitt’s certainly been in some films that haven’t done this well, and IG was sold left, right and center as a new film from Quentin Tarantino. To argue that its success (which you quite significantly did NOT predict) has nothing to do with him, and that he’s in any sense “over” is ridiculous. He’s clearly a washed-up has-been as far as you’re concerned, but you seem to want to take your own feelings and inflate them as if they were somehow more than just your own personal feelings, that they represent All Thinking People In Modern Society or something.

    You don’t like QT. We get it. There’s nothing wrong with that. But your seeming inability to deal with basic reality is kind of a freak show.

  • DeeZee

    cwr: “But Pitt’s certainly been in some films that haven’t done this well,”

    True, but if he wasn’t in it, would IB have even made half its current take?

    “and IG was sold left, right and center as a new film from Quentin Tarantino.”

    So was Grindhouse. Hell, Tom Yum Goong had QT’s name on it, even though he had nothing to do with it, and it still bombed. Christ, even with Pitt and QT, the movie only opened slightly higher than Final Destination 4 did this weekend and D9 the weekend before it. So face it: QT’s become more of a gimmick than a name-brand.

    “To argue that its success (which you quite significantly did NOT predict) ”

    No one predicted it would be successful. Even BOP was more optimistic than me, and they still low-balled it.

    “He’s clearly a washed-up has-been as far as you’re concerned, but you seem to want to take your own feelings and inflate them as if they were somehow more than just your own personal feelings,”

    Except they’re not just my own personal feelings, as other critics are now joining the band-wagon. The only way the guy is guaranteed a hit is if he panders to the torture-porn fan-base too lazy to seek out original content.

  • Rothchild

    “It was in Death Proof.”

    There wasn’t one green or blue screen shot in all of Death Proof.

  • Rothchild

    And there is no torture porn fan base. All those movies are bombing.

    I wish this thread had twice as many posts. DeeZee’s logic is fascinating. If QT said the world was round, he’d come back and say it was flat.

  • Jonah

    “So is changing the race of the character in Jackie Brown.”

    I never mentioned that.

    “I’ve got it backwards, even though the only defense people have for QT is he “improves” things?”

    QT doesn’t need a defense. He’s doing quite well for himself.

    “Um, there were millions of protesters of the war around the world on day 1 of the invasion. ”

    And a lot of people that supported the war.

    “And only six of those years had anything to do with him, rather than him cashing in on what’s popular. We’ve been over that already.”

    You went over it, but you weren’t convincing at all. And you couldn’t prove it.

    “The biggest hit of his career not having anything to do specifically with him. And the reviews were more mixed than usual, other than with the WOM.”

    It had plenty to do with him, and you can’t prove otherwise. in fact, your own words say that Pitt can’t put butts in the seats.

    “QT also did some time for beating up a critic. And QT’s only successful because of people like Avary. If he had to go at it alone, we’d get more movies like My Best Friend’s Birthday, and less like PF and RD.”

    Hitting a critic versus killing a guy

    Yeah, that’s the same.

    And again, you can’t really show that without Avary QT would be nothing.

    “You only won on a technicality, but not on whether you could prove that it was actually earned because of QT’s actual worth.”

    You said 40. I said between 60-80. Estimates show the film will be around 73 by the end of Sunday.

    “Kane: “Yes, because the use of “green screen” is a real hallmark of any Tarantino film?”

    It was in Death Proof.”

    What scenes specifically used a green screen in Death Proof? And if you make the accusation, can you prove it?

    “True, but if he wasn’t in it, would IB have even made half its current take?”

    Yes. Because Pitt is in a lot of movies that don’t do any business

    “So was Grindhouse. Hell, Tom Yum Goong had QT’s name on it, even though he had nothing to do with it, and it still bombed. Christ, even with Pitt and QT, the movie only opened slightly higher than Final Destination 4 did this weekend and D9 the weekend before it. So face it: QT’s become more of a gimmick than a name-brand. ”

    Grindhouse wasn’t that good, and a lot of people didn’t know what to make of the Grindhouse experience.

    “No one predicted it would be successful. Even BOP was more optimistic than me, and they still low-balled it.”

    A lot of people predicted it, including me.

  • cwratliff

    So, NO ONE predicted its success, and yet somehow this supports your argument that its success had nothing to do with the fact that QT wrote and directed it?

    All the people who predicted it would crash and burn KNEW that Brad Pitt was in it. Why weren’t they predicting that he would make the film a surefire hit, if he’s such foolproof box office gold?

    Granted, I’m not disputing that Pitt was a HUGE factor in it being QT’s biggest hit. Big stars are a big help at the box office, sure. That seems like an obvious point, and anyone who would dispute that Pitt was a big reason the film was a hit would be making as ridiculous a point as you are in suggesting that QT is a flash-in-the-pan director or that his name on a film makes little difference in whether people are interested in seeing it.

    Yes, Grindhouse was a flop. No one– not even QT himself– disputes that. IG is a hit– he’s hardly the first filmmaker to have films achieve varying results at the box office. By your standard, how many times would, say, Robert Altman have been “over” as a filmmaker? More than a few.

    IG was #1 in its first week and #2 in its second. Again, not unprecedented these days. Seems like most hit films do big opening weekends and then drop off significantly in the following weeks.

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make except that you don’t like QT and as far as you’re concerned, that’s the only opinion that reflects “reality” on this planet.

    Some people like his films. A lot of people don’t. The fact that a lot of people don’t like something doesn’t automatically make it unsuccessful. A lot of people don’t like superhero movies. A lot of people don’t like serious dramas. A lot of people don’t like Judd Apatow comedies. And yet, the people who don’t like those things can’t simply deny that any of those kinds of movies are successful simply because they (and like-minded others) don’t like them. Unless they’re willing to deny basic reality.

  • Jonah

    “Unless they’re willing to deny basic reality. ”

    This sentence pretty much sums up DZ.

  • DeeZee

    Roth: Saw’s doing alright.

    Jonah: “I never mentioned that”

    You implied Avary’s change was insignificant, because it was a gender change, so you could argue that Jackie Brown’s change was insignificant for its change of the race of the character from the book.

    “QT doesn’t need a defense. He’s doing quite well for himself. ”

    Last time I checked, he was nearly washed-up twice in his life.

    “And a lot of people that supported the war. ”

    And when they went the other way, Bush still chose to continue staying there, which disproves your whole point about how we wouldn’t be there if the majority of the public was against it.

    “but you weren’t convincing at all. And you couldn’t prove it. ”

    Sure I can: his Broadway debut. Not to mention that Kill Bill came after the Matrix, even though he claimed he had the idea earlier than that. And Sin City would have made the same money with or without his name attached.

    “It had plenty to do with him, and you can’t prove otherwise.”

    It had to do with the “bad publicity” of him and IB, at best. But if he was the key to the flick’s success, then Flags of our Fathers would have also been a hit solely on Clint’s name.

    “in fact, your own words say that Pitt can’t put butts in the seats.”

    No, my words were he’s not as significant at putting butts into seats as he’s hyped up to be. But he can be a factor if the flick in question has some comedic elements. After all, Burn After Reading was probably the biggest opening for a Coen movie.

    “Hitting a critic versus killing a guy”

    Jail time’s jail time.

    “And again, you can’t really show that without Avary QT would be nothing. ”

    Sure I can: My Best Friend’s Birthday and that Elvis impersonator gig on The Golden Girls.

    “You said 40. I said between 60-80. Estimates show the film will be around 73 by the end of Sunday. ”

    But you were still short, too, which means that you’re only “right” when you bet on marketing and awareness versus appeal. If IB was as confusing as Grindhouse, as you implied in the same thread, it would have met the same fate.

    “What scenes specifically used a green screen in Death Proof? And if you make the accusation, can you prove it?”

    I guess not. But I probably really meant that he just piles genres of a similar nature together without coming up with his own material.

    “Yes. Because Pitt is in a lot of movies that don’t do any business ”

    While you’re right about Pitt, he’s still enough of a draw to make a difference for a niche movie like IB.

    “Grindhouse wasn’t that good, and a lot of people didn’t know what to make of the Grindhouse experience.”

    The ads for the individual movies were fairly easy to understand.

    “A lot of people predicted it, including me. ”

    No, just you.

  • DeeZee

    crw: “So, NO ONE predicted its success, and yet somehow this supports your argument that its success had nothing to do with the fact that QT wrote and directed it?”

    Again, he wrote and directed Death proof.

    “All the people who predicted it would crash and burn KNEW that Brad Pitt was in it. Why weren’t they predicting that he would make the film a surefire hit, if he’s such foolproof box office gold?”

    Because they assumed it was another Jesse James for him. He can sell genre flicks, but everything else is a hit-or-miss.

    “By your standard, how many times would, say, Robert Altman have been “over” as a filmmaker? More than a few.”

    Altman was never big-time, though.

    “The fact that a lot of people don’t like something doesn’t automatically make it unsuccessful. A lot of people don’t like superhero movies. A lot of people don’t like serious dramas. A lot of people don’t like Judd Apatow comedies. And yet, the people who don’t like those things can’t simply deny that any of those kinds of movies are successful simply because they (and like-minded others) don’t like them.”

    So explain Transformers 2.

  • Rothchild

    “Jail time’s jail time.”

    You can rape and murder 9 women and get a smaller sentence than a guy who sells weed. Jail time is not jail time.

    DeeZee is one of my favorite things about the internet. He’s just as crazy as a guy who eats his own poop, and the reason he’s so entertaining is because he has no clue. QT is one of my favorite directors and he knows more about him than I do. I had to google some stuff he said. So in a way, thanks for letting me know more about him Mr. Tarantino.

    Most of you hate Shawn Levy or Brian Robbins. Can you imagine going to the same lengths DeeZee does with your hatred? Finding out every aspect of their biography. Knowing everything they ever wrote or directed, who they collaborated with, and who was most responsible for the final product. It’s crazy!

    I think if they did a QT version of “I Thinks We’re Alone Now” he’d be in the movie.

  • DeeZee

    Rothchild: “You can rape and murder 9 women and get a smaller sentence than a guy who sells weed. Jail time is not jail time.”

    Perhaps, but assault is still as dangerous as a DUI.

  • Jonah

    “You implied Avary’s change was insignificant, because it was a gender change, so you could argue that Jackie Brown’s change was insignificant for its change of the race of the character from the book.”

    I never said changing Jackie Brown’s race was a significant change. That was one of those things you brought up to muddy the waters.

    “Last time I checked, he was nearly washed-up twice in his life. ”

    If by washed up you mean directing big scale projects that makes their money back and then some in one week, then yeah he’s washed up.

    “And when they went the other way, Bush still chose to continue staying there, which disproves your whole point about how we wouldn’t be there if the majority of the public was against it.”

    That doesn’t even make sense, but you saying it just further proves the point I was attempting to make in the first place So thanks.

    “Sure I can: his Broadway debut. Not to mention that Kill Bill came after the Matrix, even though he claimed he had the idea earlier than that. And Sin City would have made the same money with or without his name attached.”

    Yeah, he’s not a good actor Big deal. At least he has the balls to try. Not sure what Kill Bill coming after the Matrix or Sin City’s box office has to do with anything. But you can’t prove what you said about Sin City’s box office.

    “It had to do with the “bad publicity” of him and IB, at best. But if he was the key to the flick’s success, then Flags of our Fathers would have also been a hit solely on Clint’s name.”

    No to your first point here.

    As for the Clint comment, no to that one also. Not relevant or related.

    “No, my words were he’s not as significant at putting butts into seats as he’s hyped up to be. But he can be a factor if the flick in question has some comedic elements. After all, Burn After Reading was probably the biggest opening for a Coen movie.”

    No, you were much harsher than that for over a month. But since you are the fake DZ, maybe you don’t remember what the real DZ was writing back then.

    “Jail time’s jail time.”

    Yeah, a few hours is the same as a year or more. Seriously, do you think before you click post.

    “Sure I can: My Best Friend’s Birthday and that Elvis impersonator gig on The Golden Girls.”

    A short film made without money and a guest role as an ACTOR on a television series prove nothing.

    “But you were still short, too, which means that you’re only “right” when you bet on marketing and awareness versus appeal. ”

    I wasn’t short. I said it would make between 60-80. It already has.

    ” If IB was as confusing as Grindhouse, as you implied in the same thread, it would have met the same fate. ”

    I’m so sorry that you found Grindhouse to be confusing. I’m not surprised, I’m just sorry for you.

    “I guess not. But I probably really meant that he just piles genres of a similar nature together without coming up with his own material. ”

    No, you meant green screen. So you were either lying, hoping nobody would point it out, or you’re a fucking moron.

    “While you’re right about Pitt, he’s still enough of a draw to make a difference for a niche movie like IB.”

    No, he’s been in plenty of niche films that didn’t make money.

    “A lot of people predicted it, including me. ”

    No, just you. ”

    No, as much as I’d like to be the only one there were many.

    “Again, he wrote and directed Death proof.”

    And Spielberg has made movies that flopped, and then made movies that were huge.

    “Because they assumed it was another Jesse James for him. He can sell genre flicks, but everything else is a hit-or-miss.”

    That’s not what you used to say about Pitt, when it fit your old argument.

    “”The fact that a lot of people don’t like something doesn’t automatically make it unsuccessful. A lot of people don’t like superhero movies. A lot of people don’t like serious dramas. A lot of people don’t like Judd Apatow comedies. And yet, the people who don’t like those things can’t simply deny that any of those kinds of movies are successful simply because they (and like-minded others) don’t like them.”

    DZ replied:
    So explain Transformers 2. ”

    This reply meant nothing.

    “Perhaps, but assault is still as dangerous as a DUI. ”

    Except the assault didn’t kill anybody.

  • cwratliff

    Yeah, but explain Death Proof. Yes, but he directed Death Proof. I know, but what about Death Proof.

    Apparently, if a filmmaker makes one movie that flops, DZ can just repeat the title of that film to forevermore brand that writer/director an absolute failure.

    Never mind the fact that the film in question was attached to another full-length feature, and that a lot of people were turned off by the massive running time (as opposed to drawn in by the two-for-the-price-of-one option, which was the thinking at the time), and a lot of people thought it just looked like an exploitation splatterfest.

    I don’t think Death Proof on its own would’ve been a huge hit like IG, but it would’ve done better than Grindhouse did. One of the reasons IG was destined to be a bigger hit than Death Proof– as DZ keeps saying over and over– is hit-or-miss movie star Brad Pitt. Another reason is that the idea behind Death Proof– Kurt Russell kills women with his car– is less appealing to audiences than IG’s main idea– a squad of Jews killing Nazis.

    QT is still a draw, but some of his ideas are less appealing to a wide audience. With Kill Bill and Death Proof and Jackie Brown, I think he was indulging himself and his own interests to a certain extent, but with IG I think he was making a real effort to make a film that would have a more mainstream appeal. And it worked. Even Spielberg’s films have varying degrees of success depending on what the appeal of the individual film’s idea or cast might be.

    If you’re suggesting that QT can’t make every film a hit based on his “brand” alone, you are correct. This is also true of every single successful filmmaker in the history of cinema. QT is quite capable of making films that are unsuccessful, which he quite clearly (to all but DZ) has done with IG.

    Yes, but what about Death Proof?

    Oh, right. I forgot about Death Proof!

  • CitizenKanedforChewingGum

    OMFG, this loon is still going at it in here

    If his skills of perception and analysis (or even regular coherence) were only a microscopic percentage of his “skills” of bullshitting and sheer persistence, he would be a Movie God.

    Too bad they’re not.

  • Jay T.

    I must admit I do feel a bit disappointed that QT isn’t making more movies like Jackie Brown (by far the most underrated film he’s done)… however, I still enjoyed the hell out of IB and I love the fact that the guy makes the movies he wants to make – everyone else be damned. At least QT hasn’t lost his passion like so many other directors once they have enough money to live the good life.

  • DeeZee

    Jonah: “I never said changing Jackie Brown’s race was a significant change. That was one of those things you brought up to muddy the waters.”

    Well, either change could be perceived as significant, because it impacts the perception of what you expect from the duo.

    “If by washed up you mean directing big scale projects that makes their money back and then some in one week, then yeah he’s washed up.”

    No, washed up is being booed on Broadway and nearly sending Weinco into the crapper with one of your vanity projects.

    “That doesn’t even make sense,”

    The point is that Bush was going to invade, regardless of the support for his decision.

    “Yeah, he’s not a good actor Big deal. At least he has the balls to try.”

    He also has the balls to insult Chow Yun Fat’s English when he’s a high school drop-out.

    “Not sure what Kill Bill coming after the Matrix or Sin City’s box office has to do with anything. ”

    Kill Bill would’ve bombed if not for the Matrix. And Sin City would have done well, simply because of the appeal of the style of the movie. QT had nothing to do with that.

    “But you can’t prove what you said about Sin City’s box office. ”

    Considering the other big names attached to Sin City who were probably bigger draws than QT, I can prove it.

    “No to your first point here.”

    Critics gave Grindhouse high scores, and it still bombed. You know the old saying about bad publicity?

    “Yeah, a few hours is the same as a year or more. Seriously, do you think before you click post. ”

    If he weren’t a celebrity, it might end up being a little more than just a few hours.

    “As for the Clint comment, no to that one also. ”

    Ok, so how many “niche” movies with Clint attached to them did make money?

    “No, you were much harsher than that for over a month.”

    True, but he still makes money for the most part.

    “A short film made without money and a guest role as an ACTOR on a television series prove nothing. ”

    It proves the guy can’t do shit without plagiarizing.

    “I wasn’t short. I said it would make between 60-80. It already has. ”

    You said it would make 60 mil by Friday.

    “I’m so sorry that you found Grindhouse to be confusing. I’m not surprised, I’m just sorry for you. ”

    Anyone who’s not a speed-listener would be confused.

    “No, you meant green screen. So you were either lying, hoping nobody would point it out, or you’re a fucking moron.”

    No, I just didn’t buy that he shot that car chase in a real location, because the background and the way the characters swung suggested a closed set.

    “No, he’s been in plenty of niche films that didn’t make money.”

    But those niche films would probably make no money if he weren’t in them.

    “No, as much as I’d like to be the only one there were many. ”

    Only a few people.

    “And Spielberg has made movies that flopped, and then made movies that were huge.”

    Spielberg can afford to make movies which flop.

    “That’s not what you used to say about Pitt, when it fit your old argument. ”

    I said he wasn’t the factor in genre flicks, but he was a factor.

    cwr: “Another reason is that the idea behind Death Proof– Kurt Russell kills women with his car– is less appealing to audiences than IG’s main idea– a squad of Jews killing Nazis.”

    So how come Hostel made money?

    “If you’re suggesting that QT can’t make every film a hit based on his “brand” alone, you are correct. This is also true of every single successful filmmaker in the history of cinema.”

    Actually, I’m suggesting that he no longer has a brand, other than to sell gory action flicks which are deliberately talky, in order to give viewers the pretense of a more intellectual experience than the rest of the pack. Sort of like how Spielberg’s “brand” has been diminished to that of Joe Average guys fighting dinosaurs, aliens, stupid computers and giant robots, up against a back-drop of pseudo-science or current events, thus giving the the viewer the pretense of being an “thinking man’s” disaster porn flick.

  • DeeZee

    being=watching

  • Jonah

    “Well, either change could be perceived as significant, because it impacts the perception of what you expect from the duo.”

    No. Neither change is significant.

    “No, washed up is being booed on Broadway and nearly sending Weinco into the crapper with one of your vanity projects.”

    Yeah, he’s washed up as an actor. Not as a writer/director.

    “The point is that Bush was going to invade, regardless of the support for his decision.”

    Not the point.

    “He also has the balls to insult Chow Yun Fat’s English when he’s a high school drop-out.”

    You know more about QT than any of his fans. Unless you’re just making shit up. Either way, it’s creepy.

    “Kill Bill would’ve bombed if not for the Matrix. And Sin City would have done well, simply because of the appeal of the style of the movie. QT had nothing to do with that.”

    Can’t prove the first one. As for Sin City, tell that to the guys that made The Spirit.

    “Considering the other big names attached to Sin City who were probably bigger draws than QT, I can prove it. ”

    Okay, prove it.

    “Critics gave Grindhouse high scores, and it still bombed. You know the old saying about bad publicity?”

    Doesn’t make sense and isn’t relevant.

    “If he weren’t a celebrity, it might end up being a little more than just a few hours.”

    Doubtful, because he didn’t have any priors. Still, he didn’t kill anybody and that’s a significant difference.

    “Ok, so how many “niche” movies with Clint attached to them did make money?”

    That wasn’t the topic. Stay on topic.

    “True, but he still makes money for the most part.”

    You say that now. But in a few months if him and Anniston have competing films in theaters you’ll go back to saying Pitt’s movies are always flops.

    “It proves the guy can’t do shit without plagiarizing.”

    It doesn’t prove that at all.

    “You said it would make 60 mil by Friday. ”

    No I didn’t. I said it might, and it came damn close. I say this as the film has now made 73 million. My prediction of 60-80 seems low.

    “But those niche films would probably make no money if he weren’t in them.”

    Can’t prove that either.

    “Spielberg can afford to make movies which flop.”

    Clearly so can Tarantino, because he’s back with a hit now.

    “I said he wasn’t the factor in genre flicks, but he was a factor.”

    Read that sentence out loud, then smack yourself for writing it.

  • cwratliff

    Actually, DZ, you’re suggesting that if QT has ever had success, it hasn’t really been successful success.

    And every single failure he’s EVER had is proof that any success he has now isn’t really success. Being booed in Wait Until Dark or being an embarrassingly bad guest star on Margaret Cho’s 90s sitcom means he can never have success in anything he ever does.

    And besides, explain Death Proof! Right??

  • DeeZee

    “No. Neither change is significant.”

    Those flicks might have had wider appeal, if they didn’t try to be “artsy” about how they presented the characters.

    “Yeah, he’s washed up as an actor. Not as a writer/director.”

    Oh, he’s totally washed up as a writer/director. The guy’s gone from “intellectual” to “anything for a quick buck”.

    “Not the point.”

    Last time I checked, that is the point, because your argument suggested that we wouldn’t be in Iraq if more people were against it.

    “You know more about QT than any of his fans. Unless you’re just making shit up. ”

    Nope. Google “Quentin Tarantino is a loser”.

    “Can’t prove the first one.”

    Sure I can. How well were Jackie Chan’s original movies doing before and even after Rush Hour? If QT made an American version of that shit before The Matrix, it’d be his Kung Pow, guaranteed.

    “As for Sin City, tell that to the guys that made The Spirit.”

    The Spirit would have bombed in any style, because it’s a niche comic by today’s standards. But in terms of aesthetics, The Spirit was closer in appearance to Dark Man and The Shadow than Sin City, which is really why it bombed. It was trying to give you the impression that you’d get that same SC look, but it clearly failed.

    “Okay, prove it. ”

    Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, and Jessica Alba clearly put more butts into seats than the actresses in Death Proof.

    “Doubtful, because he didn’t have any priors.”

    Priors don’t mean shit if the damage is bad enough. Plus, he just didn’t have any priors which got him arrested.

    “Still, he didn’t kill anybody and that’s a significant difference. ”

    If he hit hard enough he could have, though.

    “That wasn’t the topic. Stay on topic. ”

    You addressed it, so…

    “But in a few months if him and Anniston have competing films in theaters you’ll go back to saying Pitt’s movies are always flops.”

    Well, yeah, they probably are, but his name is enough to at least guarantee a recoup on costs. Though ironically you’re indirectly acknowledging I’m “right” on a topic by supporting a prior rant of mine. You sure you want to do that?

    “It doesn’t prove that at all.”

    Ok, so how many movies has he had which made money which weren’t specifically about references to other movies?

    “I say this as the film has now made 73 million. My prediction of 60-80 seems low.”

    So now you’re short, too?

    “Can’t prove that either.”

    Would a no-name actor be able to sell the product as well as Pitt?

    “Clearly so can Tarantino, because he’s back with a hit now.”

    He can afford to invest in another vanity project; but it could end up crashing and burning worse than Grindhouse. And there’s no guarantee his next Basterds after that won’t be his E.T. or Jurassic Park “get out of washed-up directors hell” free card.

    “Read that sentence out loud, then smack yourself for writing it. ”

    I meant he wasn’t the main factor.

    cwr: That’s about it. Without his props of name-brand actors, other people’s movies, and pointless violence, no one actually likes him.

  • Jonah

    “Oh, he’s totally washed up as a writer/director. The guy’s gone from “intellectual” to “anything for a quick buck”. ”

    Washed up definition in DZ’s world:

    Well reviewed movie that has surpassed all expectations, box office wise.

    “Last time I checked, that is the point, because your argument suggested that we wouldn’t be in Iraq if more people were against it.”

    Still not the point. Keep trying

    “Nope. Google “Quentin Tarantino is a loser”.”

    I’ll google DZ is a loser and if anything knew or cared about who you were, I’d come up with a ton of hits.

    “Sure I can. How well were Jackie Chan’s original movies doing before and even after Rush Hour? If QT made an American version of that shit before The Matrix, it’d be his Kung Pow, guaranteed.”

    That’s not proof. Thats making connections that don’t exist and making a guarantee that can’t be proven.

    “The Spirit would have bombed in any style, because it’s a niche comic by today’s standards. But in terms of aesthetics, The Spirit was closer in appearance to Dark Man and The Shadow than Sin City, which is really why it bombed. It was trying to give you the impression that you’d get that same SC look, but it clearly failed. ”

    Full on lies.

    “Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, and Jessica Alba clearly put more butts into seats than the actresses in Death Proof. ”

    THat is related to QT, how?

    “Priors don’t mean shit if the damage is bad enough. Plus, he just didn’t have any priors which got him arrested. ”

    You understand the legal system about as well as you do the box office.

    “If he hit hard enough he could have, though.”

    But he didn’t. You see, that’s how it works in the legal system. Avary could’ve kiiled a car full of people, but he didn’t. He only killed one person.

    “Well, yeah, they probably are, but his name is enough to at least guarantee a recoup on costs. Though ironically you’re indirectly acknowledging I’m “right” on a topic by supporting a prior rant of mine. You sure you want to do that?”

    I don’t think Pitt is a big enough box office draw to make a movie into a hit. But he’s a much bigger name than Anniston. In no way does that make you right on either topic.

    “Ok, so how many movies has he had which made money which weren’t specifically about references to other movies?”

    His movies aren’t about references to other movies.

    “I say this as the film has now made 73 million. My prediction of 60-80 seems low.”

    “So now you’re short, too?”

    Happily wrong. And I’ll admit it like a man when it happens, unlike you.
    Although I did say it will make at least 60-80, so technically I’m not wrong.

    “He can afford to invest in another vanity project; but it could end up crashing and burning worse than Grindhouse. And there’s no guarantee his next Basterds after that won’t be his E.T. or Jurassic Park “get out of washed-up directors hell” free card. ”

    You are clearly retarded.

    “That’s about it. Without his props of name-brand actors, other people’s movies, and pointless violence, no one actually likes him. ”

    Not true and you can’t prove otherwise.

  • cwratliff

    “He can afford to invest in another vanity project; but it could end up crashing and burning worse than Grindhouse. And there’s no guarantee his next Basterds after that won’t be his E.T. or Jurassic Park “get out of washed-up directors hell” free card.”

    Wow, so “washed-up directors hell” is a place where washed-up directors can actually afford to invest in another vanity project? Jesus Christ, it doesn’t sound so bad after all.

    Other than the fact that DZ doesn’t like Tarantino (and never, ever will), QT seems to be doing all right.

    Still, what about Death Proof, huh? Explain Death Proof!

  • zap

    DeeZee, you at least have to admit that QT would have to make a movie at least three times as successful as IB for you to say that he has had a mild success. Right?

  • cwratliff

    Even then– surely DZ would be able to find some other factor that contributed to its success in order to say that it had NOTHING to do with QT’s script, direction, or reputation.

    QT could make the highest-grossing, best-reviewed film of all time and DZ would still claim that he was somehow “washed up,” citing his obscure cameo on Margaret Cho’s failed 90s sitcom as Exhibit A.

    And besides, “explain Death Proof.”

  • zap

    Wait, hold up CWR. If QT made a movie that was the highest grossing, best reviewed of all time, we have no reason to think that DeeZee wouldn’t be willing to say that QT did something “ok.” But take away “DeathProof” and DeeZee would probably admit that QT had achieved something fairly impressive.

  • Natali Watson

    Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks
    Best regards, Natali, CEO of listen to free music
    mp3 free download