50. "We're not simply stating that. We know what he was trying to do." In response to In response to 49
>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.