denzel, oldman, gambon and jenny beals?

gonna do better 'bers than that impending disaster with pitt.

awwwwwwww yeah, time to start my Hughes Bros. campaign. they good.

Is he really the filmmaker by which all others should be measured? That's awfully high praise.

i've really liked everything they've done, but they only seem to do a movie once every 5+ years

Pulp Fiction was the only real *hit*, with the Kill Bills being his commercial comeback that won no bid acclaim.

Jackie Brown was kind of a flop. Yet critically acclaimed.

Yeah Reservoir Dogs won art house acclaim but tons of people didn't know about it til waay later.

Grindhouse was a flop.

But wait what do the Hughes Bros. have?

Menace II Society
Dead Presidents
American Pimp
From Hell

And some TV stuff.

Um, yeesh. Okay Basaglia I really started out this post wanting to change it up a little and agree with you. But I don't know man. And Menace II Society hit me harder than all of Tarantino's films put together.

All I will grant you is the Hughes Bros. are more interesting than Tarantino. I doubt I will ever be surprised by the kind of movies Tarantino makes. But the Hughes Bros? I'm curious. From Hell was a big curve ball.

what a horrible adaptation that was- but it didn't even work on its own merits.

just fucking woeful.

Even Depp's acting couldn't help.

Okay the ending was really corny and it didn't reach the quality of the graphic novel.

But I've seen worse.

It had a good stylish look, and Depp gave a usual solid performance.

The only thing that pissed me off honestly was that before I saw it a friend ruined the ending. I hadn't read the graphic novel and didn't know much about the story at that point, and my friend was all like "Better watch out for Bilbo Baggins!!!"

..so i enjoyed it for what it was. still thought it was pretty fuckin bad in spots, but Depp always is the reason why a shitty film is worth watching.

V.

B/c Charlie & The Chocolate factory, All 3 Pirates, The Libertine, Secret Window, Sleepy Hallow, The Astronaut's Wife, The 9th Gate and Nick of Time all would like a word with you.

Ok so yes Reseviour Dogs wasn't discovered until later but at the same time it was a independent film that went through the festival circuit to get it's audience so of course not a lot of ppl went to go see it. B/c ppl don't watch films they usually watch movies.

How was Jackie Brown a flop? It had a budget of $12 mill and made just under $40 mill in the US alone, never mind the world. Was it as big as Pulp fiction? No, but that's b/c it doesn't have the same appeal and wasn't gunning for the same audiences.

Kill Bill both volumes were not only commercially great but they both had 85% ratings on Rotten Tomato. Which means usually it's critically acclaimed.

Grindhouse was his only flop.

The Hughes Brothers on the other hand. Menace II Society wasn't a huge hit, it had a small budget and got a small but great return. It got a lot of acclaim and usually considered their best film.

Dead Presidents had a way bigger budget and an even less of a return. Not to mention had mixed reviews.

And you wanna talk flops, American Pimp is it. It had $600,000 budget and it didn't even make that back or half back. Also had very little acclaim.

From Hell had a huge release and still didn't meet it's budget domestically. It like the past 3 films had mixed reviews.

If you don't like Tarantino that's fine but don't make shit up just to extend your hate. I mean Tarantino is one of the most successful FILMMAKERS (Yes Michael Bay is more successful but he isn't a filmmaker) from his generation. I like both the Hughes Brothers and tarantino but tarantino is obviously a more consistent filmmaker in my mind. The first 2 Hughes brthers films were amazing but the last 2 were just alright. For me this is going to be the test to whether they were great filmmakers or just riding on a movement.

I really hate it when someone starts name calling and talking about how wrong I was and then turns around to say the same damn thing. If you actually read my post, it was about how I couldn't agree with Basaglia about the Hughes Bros. having a stronger 'resume' than Tarantino. If I was so filled with hate for Tarantino I probably wouldn't be arguing in his favor.

If you remember when Jackie Brown came out, it was seen as critically acclaimed but NOT the hit that people expected after Pulp Fiction. That's what I mean by flop. That's why the Kill Bills were seen as his big comeback, because Jackie Brown was not the big follow up. It was a much, much quieter movie.

You know, this thing that people have started doing recently, studying up the box office figures alone and judging movies as flop or hit solely on that--I think it's largely distorting the past. Let's remember that until a several years back, movies were staying at the theaters longer, the DVD video release was later, not as many people were jacking movies from the internet...Movies seen as commercial 'flops' were still making their money back in the end, when all was said and done.

But to the point--in the first place I DON'T think the Hughes Bros. have outdone Tarantino. But I DO think it's more interesting to hear about what the Hughes Bros. are doing next, than what Tarantino is doing next. If you call that hate, then I guess I'm a ticking time bomb of rage.

looks bad. haven't heard about Hughes one though. Is the trailer out?

________________________________________________________________________
Until next time, America.

so...mwah. mad.

...no wait im sorry, i meant to say "LOLza!" :)

V.

go back and watch Menance II Society again. I remember being so moved by it at the time but when I recently watched it was painfully cartoonish.


**********
"See he's organized, and he's on the ball. Never miss a day of school,and he's a underdog. Wanna learn more and more, cuz his mama taught him good. He's about to change the face of yo ghetto neighborhood." (c) Badu

Well, that and American Pimp.

Menace appealed to my inner nihilist, as it was supposed to do, according to the two of them

But (and I know I sound like one of those "the less successful follow-up is better than the hit" cats) I think Dead Presidents is a better movie: more ambitious, better looking, well-plotted (TOO well-plotted)...

I always get the sense that it was taken away from them in the editing room, because they're doing 3 genre movies in 1 (the coming-of-age story, the war film, and the social problem film), and each genre gets short shrift in the end... it should have been a longer film... and that GODAWFUL score by Danny Elfman should be replaced as well.. but yeah, beside those flaws, it's their best flick, lol...
________________________________________________________________________
Until next time, America.

>Well, that and American Pimp.
>
>Menace appealed to my inner nihilist, as it was supposed to
>do, according to the two of them
>
>But (and I know I sound like one of those "the less successful
>follow-up is better than the hit" cats) I think Dead
>Presidents is a better movie: more ambitious, better looking,
>well-plotted (TOO well-plotted)...
>
>I always get the sense that it was taken away from them in the
>editing room, because they're doing 3 genre movies in 1 (the
>coming-of-age story, the war film, and the social problem
>film), and each genre gets short shrift in the end... it
>should have been a longer film... and that GODAWFUL score by
>Danny Elfman should be replaced as well.. but yeah, beside
>those flaws, it's their best flick, lol...
>________________________________________________________________________
>Until next time, America.

I hated the structure of the story telling. As in, why was there the need for so much backstory for a heist movie. I also dislike it as an inauthentic period movies. Didn't feel like they researched it an relied on cliches from the different genres movies you mentioned.

Sound track was smoking balls though.


**********
"See he's organized, and he's on the ball. Never miss a day of school,and he's a underdog. Wanna learn more and more, cuz his mama taught him good. He's about to change the face of yo ghetto neighborhood." (c) Badu

Volume II was strong as well.

That you think it's a heist film but it's actually everything before the heist that makes the film. It's really abut the situation of the Vietnam veterans after they came back from war. The fact that they were so shell shocked from being at war, it was a recession and they got little to no compensation from the government.

Although the last time I saw it, it was with friends that hadn't seen it, and I remember that the sex scene stood out like a sore thumb that time around. Didn't it have that 'gimme that honey lime' song on it? Yeah that stole some points...

> Didn't it have that 'gimme
>that honey lime' song on it? Yeah that stole some points...

but aside for that, yeah.

the Wire made Menace look unauthentic.


**********
"See he's organized, and he's on the ball. Never miss a day of school,and he's a underdog. Wanna learn more and more, cuz his mama taught him good. He's about to change the face of yo ghetto neighborhood." (c) Badu

From Hell is horrendous.
Haven't seen Menace in 10 years; was only 14 then...I'd need to see it again to re-evaluate.
Haven't seen AP.

Overall, not a great resume.

As for QT, since you brought him up, I like all his movies including Death Proof, but theres no point in arguing with you because it wont change your mind.

or reservior dogs and you might have a case.

those films STILL hold up.

menace...not so much.

i dug dead presidents and laughed at american pimp (was i supposed to)

from hell was robotic. it had NO heart or pull, but going through the motions. depp was great but he always is.

anyway, when they make ANYTHING that fks with pulp fiction and reserviour dogs, let me know..


i'll wait


________________________________________
It's A Boy and his name is MILES KHALIL YOUNG

>or reservior dogs and you might have a case.
>
>those films STILL hold up.
>

reservoir dogs, Tarantino's best film, still holds up.

pulp fiction does not (save for Samuel L. Jackson's diner scene and brett scene).

>menace...not so much.
>

pulp...not at all..

>i dug dead presidents and laughed at american pimp (was i
>supposed to)
>
>from hell was robotic. it had NO heart or pull, but going
>through the motions. depp was great but he always is.
>
>anyway, when they make ANYTHING that fks with pulp fiction and
>reserviour dogs, let me know..
>

they did.


>
>i'll wait
>

times up

>reservoir dogs, Tarantino's best film, still holds up.
>
>pulp fiction does not

...better acting.

kill bills are better too.


jackie brown, although a snooze fest, still outshines Pulp by a nose hair.

Pulp is only better than that sh*tpiece Death Proof.

but to say pulp doesn't hold up, that's absurd. maybe it doesn't for you, but for pretty much everyone else it does.

>but to say pulp doesn't hold up, that's absurd. maybe it
>doesn't for you, but for pretty much everyone else it does.

it doesn't.

pulp was large at the time of its release. it was bigger than life

it has not aged well. watch it now, and it drags.

Menace doesn't hold up at all. Pulp drags but is a better film. And Reservoir Dogs is better than Dead Presidents.

That being said, I have more faith in Eli than Bastards because I don't think the Hughes Brothers are going to try to make a stupid B-movie which is what Tarantino has devolved into.

>Menace doesn't hold up at all. Pulp drags but is a better
>film.

Menace holds up. is has a better quality and more though put into it than Pulp.


>And Reservoir Dogs is better than Dead Presidents.
>

both good films.

>That being said, I have more faith in Eli than Bastards
>because I don't think the Hughes Brothers are going to try to
>make a stupid B-movie which is what Tarantino has devolved
>into.

Tarantino has always been a b-movie maker his entire career.

but,


Tarantino is done.

whatever he had left, was put into the Kill Bills.

>Tarantino is done.
>
>whatever he had left, was put into the Kill Bills.

He's only made Death Proof, which one can debate the merits of, but there is no evidence that he's done until he makes like 3 or 4 clunkers in a row.

(and even then, many a director works into his elderly age...)

to you it drags, to most it doesn't.

even though tarantino has his clear influences with each film (and some would argue that he's just stealing, and i wouldn't necessarily disagree), i'd argue that the difference is reservoir dogs is more influenced than it is influential and that pulp fiction is the other way around.

>to you it drags, to most it doesn't.
>

*shrug*

>even though tarantino has his clear influences with each film
>(and some would argue that he's just stealing, and i wouldn't
>necessarily disagree), i'd argue that the difference is
>reservoir dogs is more influenced than it is influential and
>that pulp fiction is the other way around.

what does this have to do with reservoir dogs being better or not better than pulp?

pulp fiction spawned more sh*tty movies. And it spawned laziness and complacency by Tarantino that has caught up with him as an artist/filmmaker.

reservoir dogs didn't blow up.

pulp did.

thats the main difference.

and if it was the other way around, Tarantino may not be on his last leg and having Brad Pitt be his leading role in his next film.

reservoir dogs had excellent storytelling. its use of the nonlinear method is much more effective than how it was done in pulp.

the characters had more depth in reservoir dogs, as opposed to the caricatures in pulp.

>what does this have to do with reservoir dogs being better or
>not better than pulp?

I'm arguing pulp was not just better, but more original, especially the ending. look at the ending of reservoir dogs. is it a great ending? yes. is it tense and does it deliver? yes. but to end a movie with a mexican standoff isn't original. and he listed "the good, the bad, and the ugly" as the greatest film of all-time, soooo...

>
>pulp fiction spawned more sh*tty movies. And it spawned
>laziness and complacency by Tarantino that has caught up with
>him as an artist/filmmaker.

and what does THIS have to do with which film is better? Every great thing in pop culture spawns sh*tty byproducts. If there were no Nirvana we probably wouldn't have to deal with Creed. And why should his laziness afterwards be how we judge this movie? That has nothing to do with the movie itself. People don't look at Harper Lee and say "Man, screw 'To Kill A Mockingbird,' she never even wrote another book!"


>
>reservoir dogs didn't blow up.
>
>pulp did.
>
>thats the main difference.
>
>and if it was the other way around, Tarantino may not be on
>his last leg and having Brad Pitt be his leading role in his
>next film.
>
>reservoir dogs had excellent storytelling. its use of the
>nonlinear method is much more effective than how it was done
>in pulp.
>
>the characters had more depth in reservoir dogs, as opposed to
>the caricatures in pulp.
>
>


I see your point, but I disagree. And I think his only bad movie since has been death proof (although I didn't mind it, but that's more a result of comparing it to planet terror than to HIS movies). I wouldn't exactly call that falling off just yet. We'll see about his next one.

>
>>what does this have to do with reservoir dogs being better
>or
>>not better than pulp?
>
>I'm arguing pulp was not just better, but more original,
>especially the ending. look at the ending of reservoir dogs.
>is it a great ending? yes. is it tense and does it deliver?
>yes. but to end a movie with a mexican standoff isn't
>original. and he listed "the good, the bad, and the ugly" as
>the greatest film of all-time, soooo...

i don't know about that. what was "more original" with pulp fiction? his "influences", like in all of his movies, are still there. he used old and tired themes for his storylines througout pulp. he even explained it as such.



>
>>
>>pulp fiction spawned more sh*tty movies. And it spawned
>>laziness and complacency by Tarantino that has caught up
>with
>>him as an artist/filmmaker.
>
>and what does THIS have to do with which film is better? Every
>great thing in pop culture spawns sh*tty byproducts. If there
>were no Nirvana we probably wouldn't have to deal with Creed.
>And why should his laziness afterwards be how we judge this
>movie? That has nothing to do with the movie itself. People
>don't look at Harper Lee and say "Man, screw 'To Kill A
>Mockingbird,' she never even wrote another book!"

you cited how "influential" his movie was, not me.

the movie in and of itself is painfully average.

>
>
>>
>>reservoir dogs didn't blow up.
>>
>>pulp did.
>>
>>thats the main difference.
>>
>>and if it was the other way around, Tarantino may not be on
>>his last leg and having Brad Pitt be his leading role in his
>>next film.
>>
>>reservoir dogs had excellent storytelling. its use of the
>>nonlinear method is much more effective than how it was done
>>in pulp.
>>
>>the characters had more depth in reservoir dogs, as opposed
>to
>>the caricatures in pulp.
>>
>>
>
>
>I see your point, but I disagree. And I think his only bad
>movie since has been death proof (although I didn't mind it,
>but that's more a result of comparing it to planet terror than
>to HIS movies). I wouldn't exactly call that falling off just
>yet. We'll see about his next one.

i think he has run out of ideas, and has already run to the well too many times. his style of movies is his style of movies, but you still have to upgrade if you are going to do more of the same.

this new movie? i don't know.

death proof wreaked of a guy who was too in love with himself and his past success to take the project seriously. much different from the kill bills where he gave 100% effort and it showed in the quality of the films.

>i think he has run out of ideas, and has already run to the
>well too many times. his style of movies is his style of
>movies, but you still have to upgrade if you are going to do
>more of the same.
>
>this new movie? i don't know.
>
>death proof wreaked of a guy who was too in love with himself
>and his past success to take the project seriously. much
>different from the kill bills where he gave 100% effort and it
>showed in the quality of the films.
>

in their career though, and you would've been right most of the time too.

but seriously, as far as legacy or influence goes we shouldn't even be discussing these guys. when filmmakers/serious fans look back at this era, just about everyone will pale in comparison to the coen brothers. i feel like even the coen movies that didn't get great reviews (and i havent seen all of them, so maybe someone else can attest to this) will be looked as shit people just didn't get at the time a la kubrick.

was that well liked round here?

I watched it the other day, but I was exhausted, ready to fall asleep, and not really into it..as a result i didn't really like it...but ?? maybe i'll have to watch it again..

but i like the idea of their comedies having all these intricate plot twists that everyone tries to pay attention to when they ultimately amount to nothing. i guess it's not a good idea reputation-wise to kind of play a joke on the audience, but it was funny to me.

most of all i respect anyone who can switch genres and types of characters easily. i love wes anderson movies, but you have to acknowledge that their all the same idea. he found his niche, and that's fine, but he's also going to be remembered as someone who never left his comfort zone. i'd probably do the same thing if i was in his position, but still.