Yes, the original theatrical cut with the trailers and everything was played on Starz last night fyi.

i really dug deathproof, even though it got destroyed.

Because I've seen the uncut versions on Starz already but as far as I know last night was the premiere - even said it in the info box on the cable guide.

Says you can download it at the Starz site but I haven't messed with that.
http://www.starz.com/appmanager/seg/s?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=movie_detail&vid=4217964&eid=-1

One thing I did find strange about it though - most all of the movie was in widescreen except deathproof which was in Full Screen for some reason. Besides that it was the theatrical version.

than the original.

Everything makes a lot more sense with the extra footage (the B&W footage) and the lapdance scene was cool.


---------------------------------------
The OKP® King of the Late Pass™


"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

That whole scene was good to watch, from him doing the poem to the end of the dance.

Why be a glutton for punishment?

seriously
just because its tarantino people feel the need to suck the dick of this movie, but it really wasn't any good. at all.

planet terror was a FAR superior movie and i'm sure if tarantino directed it everyone would think so too

my thoughts exactly.

I really don't care if you didn't like it. You could say that the film is horrible a milliion more times and I'd still like it.

I'm not saying it's an objectively great film or anything but I really don't see why everyone has to spend so much time saying that a movie which basically set out to be a bad/b-rated movie is bad.

>I really don't see why everyone has to spend so much time
>saying that a movie which basically set out to be a
>bad/b-rated movie is bad.

Death Proof was not.

I detested Death Proof, though. Yo, every girl who wasn't Mary Elizabeth Winstead (becauses she had little to say, anyways), Rose, or Rosario were REAL annoying. The movie was mostly meaningless dialogue, and boring/corny dialogue at that. That joint draaaaaaaaaged, and that feet fetish garbage is getting mad old. And that 10-15 second close-up of cheese dribbling from Kurt Russell's face as he wolfed down those nachos was sick, WTF?. What I did like, though, was Rose McGowan (she was a highlight in both films), the actual car scenes with Russell, and...uh...yeah...

I actually had low expectations when I watched Grindhouse. Ironically, the movie I thought would be the better feature ended up as the much lesser of the two. I'd watch Planet Terror on DVD, again, especially if it comes with at least Machete. Thanksgiving was mad over-the-top and hilarious, too.

>I detested Death Proof, though. Yo, every girl who wasn't
>Mary Elizabeth Winstead (becauses she had little to say,
>anyways), Rose, or Rosario were REAL annoying. The movie was
>mostly meaningless dialogue, and boring/corny dialogue at
>that. That joint draaaaaaaaaged, and that feet fetish garbage
>is getting mad old.

^^^Non-fiction

And that 10-15 second close-up of cheese
>dribbling from Kurt Russell's face as he wolfed down those
>nachos was sick, WTF?.

Maybe he threw that in for the stoners because I would've wolfed them nachos down in the same manner. Them 'chos looked just as good as that Big Kahuna burger which had me salivating everytime I saw it.

What I did like, though, was Rose
>McGowan (she was a highlight in both films), the actual car
>scenes with Russell, and...uh...yeah...

I liked her & Marley Shelton a lot in both flicks.

Which came out in March.

But eh still no Kill Bill the Whole Bloody Affair. I mean didn't
that premiere at Cannes like 3 years ago? wtf where is DVD already?

I'm about an hour and 15 minutes into Death Proof... and there's been about 10 minutes of movie here. Did this dude REALLY take a short story idea, add about an hour of girls talking, and call it a feature?

I mean, now I know why Planet Terror went first in the double feature. Folks woulda walked out or have been asleep by now.

And don't get me started on the notes I'm taking regarding the racial insensitivity in Death Proof. Don't. Get. Me. Started.

...and the rest was boring dialogue. Sigh.

That was a dope car chase tho. Zoe Bell gets props.

Not only was it just endless dialogue of some broads talking - THE DIALOGUE SUCKED.

It was unnatural and contrived. I'm getting all worked about it again.

But man... the dialogue was not good. Easily the worst QT film to date.

of the last half-decade

...the rest of it was as plotless, meandering, poorly written, and pretentious as any film I've ever seen.

There's no story to the film-- only a premise.

I'd heard it was bad, but had no idea. I actually went in hopeful, especially after watching Planet Terror.

I hated the characters so much by time they had that car chase that I wanted them to all die and Kurt Russel to win. I was PISSED about the ending.

So he gets shot once... and all of a sudden becomes a crybaby? Wasn't this dude a stuntman? Wasn't he fearless to fuck up his car, break his collarbone, nose, finger, and all the stuff they listed? He catches one bullet in his bicep, and he's suddenly a whiny bitch running from these girls? And why couldn't he have just rammed into em like the first car... isn't his car supposed to be much much stronger than the other?

I suppose the radical character shift of the girls saying out of nowhere "Let's kill him!" was equally atrocious.

im all riled up again.

i hear everybody on the wackness of tarantino's plot (or lack there of) and such for Death Proof. but are we forgetting that this was supposed to be made like the "terrible" B-movies from back in the day, many of which only had no budget, a few minutes of plot, very weak dialogue, and one or two rememberable scenes?

that's all folks.

"but, but, but -- QT *wanted* to make a bad movie!"

lol. any no-talent hack can rip-off old b-movies...

whoops!

But yes, it seemed obvious to me *shrugs*. Maybe it's all of
those crappy movies from the 70s my friend made me watch the
year before, but it seemed like he was totally going for a poorly
written, poorly edited movie from the 70s. The content - like with
most of his movies - is just that you chill and smoke some pot with
the characters.

The Weinsteins spent 100 million dollars on a film that QT told them was going to be a piece of shit 70's movie?

Also, Tarantino said that he was going to show America that Kurt Russell was a bad ass again. He expected big things from Grindhouse. I can't imagine he didn't think he was elevating the genre. Hell, I'm pretty sure he said somewhere that it was the best script he'd written.

>The Weinsteins spent 100 million dollars on a film that QT
>told them was going to be a piece of shit 70's movie?
>
>Also, Tarantino said that he was going to show America that
>Kurt Russell was a bad ass again.

Mickey Rourke still would've been better but even he couldn't save that sorry ass script. Domino muthafuckas!

Just the fact that you guys are acting all shocked at the idea. I mean look at the fucking editing! Do you think that those bad edits are just accidental? That he thinks he's changin the game with his revolutionary mismatched cut edits? It's a BAD edit ON PURPOSE.

Just the fact that you guys are acting like I made it up or something tells me the idea didn't convey easily to the audience and/or flew way over your heads.

It's just a way to stylize and fit in with the concept. He couldn't write a horror movie, so he wrote a bad 70s b-rated film - the type you would see in a ***GRINDHOUSE*** theatre.

So YES, YES again.

When I take a shit, it's supposed to be shitty. But I don't sit and admire how shitty my shit is, because at the end of the day, it's still shit.

QT made a bad movie, and bad movies are supposed to be shitty. But I'm not gonna sit here and marvel at how authentically bad the film is, because at the end of the day, it's still shit.

If you were say born in 1980 like me you may have never seen a film from the 70s. Therefore the references to that style of film may be "over your head"

I mean, MAYBE you chuckle at some of the stuff like the editing but you can get that out of a simple trailer (which is probably why the trailers were the best part of the movie). You don't need to sit through a two hour film to "get it".

You could see it as clever but that wears out pretty quick. Then all you are left with is a shitty movie. It's basically a one-joke movie: the joke being how the movie is terrible.

Rodriguez made a "bad" fun, enjoyable, gory, and awesome movie.
Tarantino made a "bad" bad movie.

I get it. But it's absolutely no excuse for the movie being so bad.

when cause i would LOVE to peep that one

"They just fucked with the wrong Mexican"

Last Game:
Kansas 75, Memphis 68
Record (37-3)
BIG 12 REGULAR SEASON CHAMPS, 4TH STRAIGHT YEAR!!!!
BIG 12 TOURNEY CHAMPS, 3RD STRAIGHT YEAR!!!!
2008 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!!!

http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl

Bury this bullshit.

Its fucking stupid and pathetic.




----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Its quality is on a such a low level that it goes straight over your head.

>Its quality is on a such a low level that it goes straight
>over your head.

But real talk: this film was so bad, I actually
felt sorry and sympathetic for QT, because he just
knew this was going to be the hotshit when he came
up with the idea

Like a dank smelly run down theatre in the middle of the city that plays actual film? He was making a stylized film.

I admitted that the idea was a cop out but to just act like it's not in the idea/concpet is just plain fucking RETARDED. Are you that fuckiong dense that you can't see that they BOTH were trying to make somewhat BAD films?!?!?

I agree it makes it hard to criticize but it isn't impossible. And the first step in being a decent critic of the film is to aknowledge the concept, not just dismiss it like it's not even there.

The concept is a Saturday Night Live sketch not a major motion picture.

And let's not forget that QT didn't think he was making a "bad" movie. He thought he was raising the level of the genre. It was a simple movie but he thought people would love it.

Well I don't see many people criticizing it based on the effect he wanted to get out of the audience. Which I think is a great way to criticize someone. It seems like I see people throwing around this "genius" shit like he was trying to make his next Pulp Fiction or something. When it couldn't be any more obvious that he wasn't trying to make a great film in that sense.

>Well I don't see many people criticizing it based on the
>effect he wanted to get out of the audience. Which I think is
>a great way to criticize someone. It seems like I see people
>throwing around this "genius" shit like he was trying to make
>his next Pulp Fiction or something. When it couldn't be any
>more obvious that he wasn't trying to make a great film in
>that sense.

People wanted to see an entertaining movie. Even if it was dumb like Planet Terror. Instead, Tarantino delivered a mind-numbingly boring movie. He might have actually lowered the bar.

And I don't think people are throwing around the "genius" shit. They are simply calling it how they see it. Tarantino made a boring film. If that was his intention, congrats, but I'm not going to say he deserves praise for making a bad film like bad filmmakers made bad films 30 years ago.

about him trying to elevate an entire genre or some bullshit?
You really think that he thought he was sooo much better than the people who made some of his FAVORITE films?

I guess what I am saying here is that I don't judge art by the paint brush.

For someone to say that the dialouge seemed contrived and not to point out that it was possibly on purpose is a bad criticism. Because he INTENDED the dialouge to be contrived! So he is using it as a tool. I can't say that you're not allowed to do that. I just can't make that rule. But I CAN say that it wasn't very effective in this case. And that maybe he was going for a tension build up that just simply fell flat. I can judge artists on the effect they were going for. But I never can tell an artist not to use a certain technique or tool.

Art is a strange thing. Believe it or not there are artists that try to get bad reactions out of there audiences. And well if he was going for that (haha) I think he succeeded with flyng colors - from what I've read anyway.

...then he succeeded. But he didn't, because that's fucking dumb and a huge waste of money and a smudge on his resume.

Again, you can make a movie with contrived dialogue and still make it fun in that "bad" way. Again, I point to Planet Terror. But you can't make a movie that expensive with the intention of making the audiences hate it. Tarantino wasn't in interviews saying "Oh man, you won't believe how bad this movie is!" He thought he was making a modern-day incarnation of a specific genre. The trouble is, old examples of that genre succeeded, because they were still fun. His attempt failed miserably.

Yeah, just ignore that part it was mopre of a joke man.

That still doesn't change my point.

If you simply state that the dialouge is contrived, it's poorly acted or whatever. I think you come off looking like a dumbass. Because you are only pointing out the obvious things he intended and nothing that went wrong .

>If you simply state that the dialouge is contrived, it's
>poorly acted or whatever. I think you come off looking like a
>dumbass. Because you are only pointing out the obvious things
>he intended and nothing that went wrong .

But everything did go wrong. No one liked it, it received some of the worst reviews he's ever gotten, and it lost a ton of money. Why? Not because it was "too over the heads of folks," cuz folks love to see bad genre flicks. Zombie flicks and horror flicks make money all the time.

It failed because it was 2 hours and 15 minutes of pure and utter garbage. There was one cool car chase, and the rest was shit. Intentional or not, there's no excuse for making a high-budget film like that.

And really, the budget should indicate to you that SoulHonky is right, he wanted to elevate the genre. He wanted it to be ironic and fun. Know how I know? Because the old grindhouse movies were made for NOTHING. And between him and Rodriguez, they spent an assload of money on these flicks. Why would they do that, if they knew they were making bad flicks? Because they were supposed to be so bad that they're fun.

Rodriguez succeeded. He made a fantastic stylized elevation of the genre flick. I loved it.
Tarantino failed.

the way you guys feel about Deathproof. Take all of that and apply it to Planet Terror and that's how I feel.

I enjoyed Deathproof. But Planet Terror just went on and on and fucking on. I hated it.

So to me I just think it's subjective. I'd rather hear those girls make a thousand more Austin Texas references than see one more stupid zombie get whacked. But eh that's just me I guess.

But no, you guys come on here and think your opinions are objective. Well they are not sorry guys. In fact before I went on the internet and saw all the flaming of Deathproof going on my two closest friends who saw it isolated from me felt the same way I felt. That Planet Terror went on way too long and that they liked Deathproof much better. And don't forget that dominating opinions on the internet will "wag the dog" now and then. If you see a bunch of people saying the movies has bad dialoug and bad acting with out ANY indication that the artist meant them to be that way well people will focus on that and they WILL think it was unintentionally bad. And yes to a whole generation of people who have never seen a grindhouse flick I'm afraid it will go over there heads.

Tarantino LOVES exploitation films. If, as you say, people can't simply watch Deathproof and enjoy it as a standalone film, then QT failed. He wanted to make an enjoyable movie but apparently the only way you can enjoy it is if you already love grindhouse films and consider all of the 70's effects and cheesy dialogue as in jokes.

You've basically had to change your argument to "Tarantino was trying to make a bad film" in order to argue that it wasn't a bad film. Sorry, but that wasn't his intention (as he stated in pretty much every interview in which he went on about how exploitation films weren't bad and he wanted to bring a new generation to the films he loved).

Maybe you can bring something to it and find a way to enjoy it but even you have stated that most people won't like it. And for all of your "your opinion isn't objective", you are the one who is dismissing other people's opinions by claiming people who didn't like it just didn't get it.

I've never said you were wrong for liking the film. I've said you wrong fro saying other people somehow missed the point because they didn't like it.

Dude I wasn't argueing that it's a good film BECAUSE he was trying to make a bad one. I said you guys are acting like he wasn't trying to make a b-rated movie

It's in the fucking title man

An extremely boring movie. And that's not what most B-movies are known for. Kurt Russell has been in some GREAT b-movies. Death Proof was a bad version of a bad b-movie.

"I can't imagine he didn't think he was elevating the genre. "

"THE DIALOGUE SUCKED.

It was unnatural and contrived. I'm getting all worked about it again."

"just because its tarantino people feel the need to suck the dick of this movie, but it really wasn't any good. at all."

And then I get you and Longo just twisting what I'm saying.
You guys made it out to seem like I said "it's good because it's bad" - which I did not. So I elaborated. You guys continue to play dumb. So I elaborate more, that is all that happened here. I'm not trying to convert anyone I just was trying to make the simple point which by now has been made.

>"I can't imagine he didn't think he was elevating the genre.
>"

Kill Bill was a standard kung-fu movie but I felt like he elevated it a little bit and made it appealing to a wider audience.

Pulp Fiction was pulp fiction but I think he turned it into a great film and a film that affected directors for years to come.

With this film to bring a whole new generation of fans to Grindhouse films. I don't think anyone can really argue that he was successful in doing that. I'm sorry but there's no way that Tarantino expected this movie to be considered boring or not connect with the audience the way it did.

He has made pretty much nothing but derivative genre films. In this case, he wasn't able to make it more appealing. In fact, it was less appealing to many.


>"THE DIALOGUE SUCKED.

You claim that he wanted the dialogue to suck but I really don't believe it. I don't think he wanted it to be eloquent and there were going to be some cheesy lines but I think he expected people to go nuts for a lot of the dialogue the same way they did with Pulp Fiction.


>I'm not trying to convert anyone I just was
>trying to make the simple point which by now has been made.

You were dismissing people's opinion by saying they didn't get it. You argued that people needed to appreciate the director's intent, even though the quote Longo posted seem to go against what you claim was the intent.

Hell, Uwe Boll wanted to make bad movies so they wouldn't make money and his investors would be able to write off the films and make money because of a German tax loophole. Should we all suddenly appreciate his films more since he wasn't really trying to make a good movie?

So the whole "I wanted it to be bad" argument is absolutely null and void.

Yeah your right no way were they in anyway trying to make the films look low budget, "b-rated", no nah I got it all twisted.

So why the fuck was Planet Terror all scratchy? Man that's stupid as fuck why don't they spring for some real film with there 100 million budget fucking cheap bastards.

But QT wanted it to be more than just cheese. You can keep the visual style and the script separate, really.

Death Proof looked low budget and was boring.

QT was going for the former, not the latter.

basically both parties staying on the same fucking subject.

He just said once again that they didn't try to make it b-rated or low budget. You guys are fucking morons if you didn't pick up on the cheezy dialouge in BOTH movies

So while you are sticking with your name-calling, we'll go by what the auteur actually said his intentions were.

As for logic, I think boring movies are, by definition, bad. Death Proof was a boring movie. Therefore, Death Proof was bad. Now I'm not saying that you are wrong for saying you thought it was entertaining, I'm saying you're wrong for trying to even insinuate that Tarantino's goal was to make a film people wouldn't like.

I said one thing that made it seem that way and for real I was just sort of joking. I don't think he intended to piss off his audience.

Since we are on Okayplayer I'll use a Roots analogy to give another example of where I'm coming from. See ?uest's feelings on the "no charisma" criticism of black thought. A bit unfair when Black Thought is DECIDEDLY deadpan with his delivery. I don't think he's trying to exempt him from criticism at all, just *seemingly* ignorant criticism.

The thing that is pissing me off here is that I think you do know where I'm coming from and you are just pretending or twisting some unknown quote to mean the opposite. Come on man the only fucking thing I'm saying is that yes he was trying to make certain parts of the film "sub par" or "b-rated". And I mean I think the film speaks for itself. You can't just have purposefully bad edits and not expect some purposefully bad dialog and or acting. And a failure to address this when trying to criticize makes you *look* ignorant. And notice all my name calling has contingencies. If you think this you are - mainly because I know you guys don't think that he was trying to make an A-Rated contemporary film.

alright yo, these guy's are saying that a director can do all the things that you attribute to this film (corny dialogue, poor editing, all that.. in homage to a past style) and still make a movie that connects with the audience and that people like. however, they don't think tarantino did that with this movie. see the idea is you can have certain aspects of the movie be "bad" and still make a fun movie! most people who saw death proof felt like the movie they saw was no fun. perhaps you're excluded from that "most", but these guys are definitely not misunderstanding what you're tryna say.

"He actually said outright he didn't want it to be cheesy."
Author Frank Longo
Author Info Member since Nov 18th 2003
33732 posts
Date Fri May-02-08 06:44 PM
Message





In response to Reply # 59

So the whole "I wanted it to be bad" argument is absolutely null and void.

maaan how do YOU interperet that? that's straight from tarantino, quote:"i'm not going for that cheesy factor myself" (source:http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-Review/death-proof-quentin-tarantino-interview) That throws off what EVERYONE's been saying in this thread, even Longo who posted it. But basically Tarantino's admitting that the cheesiness of it isn't supposed to be the highlight, which if it were true is a really sad statement since that's about all the movie got by on.

>The thing that is pissing me off here is that I think you do
>know where I'm coming from and you are just pretending or
>twisting some unknown quote to mean the opposite. Come on man
>the only fucking thing I'm saying is that yes he was trying to
>make certain parts of the film "sub par" or "b-rated". And I
>mean I think the film speaks for itself. You can't just have
>purposefully bad edits and not expect some purposefully bad
>dialog and or acting. And a failure to address this when
>trying to criticize makes you *look* ignorant. And notice all
>my name calling has contingencies. If you think this you are -
>mainly because I know you guys don't think that he was trying
>to make an A-Rated contemporary film.

Who said he was trying to make a contemporary film? And who says b-movies can't be entertaining? Those are the two facts you simply refuse to get your head around which is why you are continually missing the point.

Yes, some things were meant to evoke a mood of the 70's but that doesn't mean the film has to be bad. Dialogue can be cheesy yet clever. Characters don't have to be three dimensional but you can still care about them. You are sitting here calling people ignorant but you have no point.

People know that he wanted to make a film that paid homage to exploitation films. He did it poorly. It was boring.

Oh, and spare me with the contingencies shit. At least be willing to stand by your calling people out. It's bad enough when you make things up but if you can't stand by your posts then log off.

Nah fam. I just ignored your "points" because they were not on the same logical discussion.

I am fine with your opinion and I understand where you are coming from. LIke I said you can hate this film all you want. I just said that I don't like criticism that comes off ignorant and doesn't adress the stylizing.

You continually adress the sylizing so you are not what I am talking about. I did respond to you in saying fine, you don't like it, I do.

And I wasn't pussying out. If you can't notice the stylizing in this film I do think you are an idiot. And if you fail to address it you do look like a bad critic to me sorry man.

You can spit your opinions over and over at me and at the end of the day that's all it is - YOUR opinion, not mine.

When the whole substance of the film is stylizing, there's a problem.

And it's hilarious that you act like you are taking the higher road yet dismiss other people's opinions as ignorant or illogical.

Well because it is illogical man. I wasn't trying to objectify or convert anyone into thinking my opinion is right. I was just saying that yes, to a certain extent he was trying to make a "bad" film.

But you keep trying to get me to go a long with your line of thinking. Well don't agree that it came off as "bad", so it's hard for me to get into that with you in the first place.

>Well because it is illogical man. I wasn't trying to
>objectify or convert anyone into thinking my opinion is right.
>I was just saying that yes, to a certain extent he was trying
>to make a "bad" film.
>
>But you keep trying to get me to go a long with your line of
>thinking. Well don't agree that it came off as "bad", so it's
>hard for me to get into that with you in the first place.

I keep going by your logic as well and you still ignore my points.

If it came off as bad because he meant to, it's still boring thus not the bad he intended. If he thought, as he has said time and again, that he didn't think grindhouse movies were bad and wrote what he considered his best script, then it's even worse since it was a tedious bad movie.

Unless you are saying that he was really trying to make a bad, boring movie, I'm not sure how I'm trying to bend you to my line of thinking.

But it deserves credit because he made it just like people used to make bad films. Giggle giggle.

>I guess what I am saying here is that I don't judge art by the
>paint brush.

WTF? You are judging EXACTLY by the paint brush. You aren't looking at the fact that he made a bad film. You are trying to give him credit for making a bad film like they used to make bad films.

>For someone to say that the dialouge seemed contrived and not
>to point out that it was possibly on purpose is a bad
>criticism. Because he INTENDED the dialouge to be contrived!
>So he is using it as a tool. I can't say that you're not
>allowed to do that. I just can't make that rule. But I CAN say
>that it wasn't very effective in this case. And that maybe he
>was going for a tension build up that just simply fell flat. I
>can judge artists on the effect they were going for. But I
>never can tell an artist not to use a certain technique or
>tool.

So he tried to make a bad film and did a bad job. CLEARLY, he should be lauded for that.

>Art is a strange thing. Believe it or not there are artists
>that try to get bad reactions out of there audiences. And well
>if he was going for that (haha) I think he succeeded with
>flyng colors - from what I've read anyway.

He wasn't trying to get bad reactions from the audience. He said it was his best script and he thought kids from today who never saw the 70's films would LOVE it and they might rediscover the old 70's films because of it. It's not like he put that film up there like an Andy Kaufman performance.

Tarantino did a bad job making a cheesy film. You can cop pleas and make up excuses for why he's misunderstood but I think if you look at it on a basest level, the fact is clear: it is a bad movie.

eh I'm not copping any plea here man. I...oh shit Roots ad on TV.....anyway I really don't give a shit that you didn't like it. But I do take issues with bad critics now and then.

Really you can not like it all you want...I can see that. But I still like it.

"One of the things I always loved about exploitation movies is that, even in the midst of all that's going on, you all of a sudden start caring about the characters," he says. "And, all of a sudden, it's not silly any more because you actually give a fuck about what happens to these people, and I love that. Especially when you're watching it with modern audiences. When I show these films to my friends, I say, 'Look, there's some funny stuff in these movies but, please, laugh because it's funny, not to show that you're superior to it and show how cool you are - don't laugh at it, laugh with it. And if you resist the temptation to just ridicule this shit and take it at face value, you'll be surprised. All of a sudden, you get into the movie."

"I don't consider this a movie-movie," he continues. "This takes place in the movie real world, taking Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction as the Quentin universe. This is the Quentin universe, not the Kill Bill world. These girls would never bump into the characters from Kill Bill. To me, this is not fantastical. You could get a car to do this. You could meet a guy like Stuntman Mike. And if you do, you're fucked. When he's coming at you at 100mph, there's not a damn thing you can do about it."

And the MOST IMPORTANT ONE:

"I’m not going for that cheesy factor myself, in terms of the making of the movie, but one of the things I always loved about exploitation movies is that, even in the midst of all this whatever, you all of a sudden start caring about the characters. You care what happens to them and you get caught up in it, even in this silly movie. And all of a sudden it’s not silly any more because you actually give a f*** about what happens to these people, and I love that. Especially when you’re watching it with modern audiences."

does the rest of you guys also do this much replying/googling abt movies that you didn't even like, or is it only longo?

i'm just curious.

I got books and books of interviews and criticisms of all his films right now. I didn't look terribly hard to find those quotes.

Relax, guy.

And despite all the QT hate going on in this very thread, I liked Death Proof better. And my wife definitely did.

My ratings:
Death Proof = A
Planet Terror = A-
Grindhouse as a whole = A+

Grindhouse was one of my favorite movie experiences of the year, that's for damn sure. I loved both movies, the trailers, the whole idea.

I'm sure I'll be labeled a QT fanboy but I just thought Death Proof was dope as fuck. Planet Terror was also very fucking cool. I'd have to see them again to really remember why I preferred DP...

I'm waiting for a Grindhouse DVD set that puts the two movies together (with trailers and all) just as they were shown in theaters - if that ever happens. But I've also been waiting on the deluxe Kill Bill set for way too fucking long now, so who knows.

And for the record, I don't think the Grindhouse movies were meant to be "bad" movies - I think they were meant to be in a low-budget style evocative of the old grindhouse days.

Both were brilliantly done, I say.

Hate away.

The Grindhouse experience was one of the best times I had in a theatre last year... and I saw quite a few movies...
________________________________________________________________________
I'm so happy
Doin' the neutron dance
I'm just burnin'
Doin' the neutron dance
Woo hoo

Despite my paper, I like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, LOVE Jackie Brown, like both Kill Bills...

... I went in thinking, "Maybe this is just some O_E-fueled hate. I'll come in and it's actually dope."

And I just kept waiting for the dopeness. And waiting. And waiting. There was the one cool car wreck. And the car chase with Zoe Bell was unbelievable.

But I just can't let that make up for the rest of it. The dialogue was just straight doodoo to me. :-\

I did fucking love Planet Terror and the trailers tho.

It sucked and films like that only gets made
because sympathetic people continue to make
excuses for bad movie tastes.

It sucked, and there are thousands of filmmakers,
some who post on here(not me, btw) who deserve that
opportunity and audience.

Tarantino gets it because he's magically manufactured
an aura, and people automatically think its good
just because its supposed to be good. Just like a lot
of senseless fads and reps. Just look at the whitehouse.

It sucks.

Don't be nice about it.

It will continue to happen as long as people
continue to be all soft about criticizing it.

Nothing, at all, redeeming about that movie.

And even worse, it wasted the time and effort
of an actual good fillmaker(Robert Rodriguez).

Rodriguez is Mexican-Am, and likely only hangs
with QT because he's a ticket to mainstream success,
but he's far more talented than QT(by light years)
and at some point will have to get rid of that loose
baggage and make some real fucking good movies, even
ones that QT doesn't approve of.


----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

I'm goin in on this flick. I've actually done too much, I think, so I've decided to fall back. I think I made my hate of this flick known that clearly, lol.

>It sucked and films like that only gets made
>because sympathetic people continue to make
>excuses for bad movie tastes.

No, it was fucking awesome and lots of people loved it. Of course, it's all subjective so I'm not wasting my time going back and forth about it. If you want to keep attacking, have a ball.


>It sucked, and there are thousands of filmmakers,
>some who post on here(not me, btw) who deserve that
>opportunity and audience.

Nope. Tarantino has earned his opportunities, fame and success by making dope as fuck movies.


>Tarantino gets it because he's magically manufactured
>an aura,

"Magically manufactured an aura"? Do you even realize what a steaming pile of shit this entire argument is?

His success, and his "magical aura", are the result of him making numerous movies that are fucking awesome and that millions of people love.

But to you he's just a magician who gets by on smoke, mirrors, and propaganda. See, there's no point discussing things with you.


>and people automatically think its good
>just because its supposed to be good.

But WHY is it supposed to be good? How did this magical aura come about? Is he a magician? Did he buy it?

How did the sheep become convinced that QT was a genius if he's really a talentless hack?

As Jay said:
"I heard mother fuckers saying they made Hov
Made Hov say, "Okay, so, make another Hov" "


If people only like QT's movies because they're "supposed" to like them - how did it become that way?

You say it's hype - where did the hype come from?

Did he find a leprechaun and wish for fame and success? Did he rub a genie's lamp?

Is he really the luckiest man alive, then? Must be, if he's been tapped as the guy everybody is "supposed" to like, even though you say he makes crappy movies with nothing redeeming about them.


>Nothing, at all, redeeming about that movie.

Except that it was awesome and people loved it.

and really likes to say 'fucking awesome'^

I know some people on here get off on hating QT. I don't care. Have fun.

I know that in real life, most people love him and his "fucking awesome" movies (except older people).

OE's the one who's mad and bitching about QT in virtually every post he makes. He spends an awful lot of time and effort hating something, whereas I spend a post here and there sharing my extremely favorable opinions of movies I love.


PS I only said it twice (and was making the exact same point both times).

If you don't like a movie, here's what you say:

--- If a movie was a big success, it's only because the sheeple were fooled by marketing and hype. (OE's central and idiotic thesis about Pulp Fiction)

--- If a movie doesn't do numbers, it's because it sucked. (sometimes true, but not always)



Whereas if you like the movie, here's what you say:

--- If the movie was a big success, it's because everyone loved it and it was great.

--- If the movie didn't do numbers, it's only because it wasn't promoted enough, people "didn't get it", or people have no taste.


Grindhouse didn't get the numbers people expected, but critics and fans loved it.
Seeing as how it was two movies and even most of the QT haters loved Planet Terror, I don't see how QT can take all the blame for the movie's alleged flop.

Death Proof is the evidence.

he is finished.

he still thinks its 1995.

the world and movie-going audience has moved on.

he hasn't.

Death Proof was bad. really, really, bad. Kurt Russel (1st part of the movie) and the soundtrack were the only highlights.

Planet Terror was excellent? You know why? because Rob wasn't trying. "Making some b-movie sh*t? cool check this out?" and it was a blast...

Tarantino? "hey look at me, and how brilliant i am, i really know how women talk....i'm so hip and cool", and fell flat on his face. dumb bitches talking for 98% of a movie? yeah...brilliant work.

he doesn't have any ideas left (as if he had any in the first place). Vega Brothers, his "southern", Inglorious Bastards? hahaha...he doesnt' have a clue. Lucky for him, he can live off of Pulp Fiction money for the rest of his life.

>Planet Terror was excellent? You know why? because Rob wasn't
>trying. "Making some b-movie sh*t? cool check this out?" and
>it was a blast...

I think he was trying. I think he was trying to make a dope gory funny old-school-style movie. And he succeeded.

>
>>Planet Terror was excellent? You know why? because Rob
>wasn't
>>trying. "Making some b-movie sh*t? cool check this out?" and
>>it was a blast...
>
>I think he was trying. I think he was trying to make a dope
>gory funny old-school-style movie. And he succeeded.

Rob had fun with it. He wasn't reaching.

Tarantino was reaching. trying too hard.