Message Board | Rules

Thread: City of Fire

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Golden Perch > City of Fire   
I think Tarantino's greatest contribution to cinema is bullsh*t dialogue ("you know what they call a big Mac in Europe?" etc. etc.) great soundtrack songs, and screwy editing with the storylines. Myself, I loved Jackie Brown, mostly cos Tarantino really knows how to use a soundtrack, and I love the Delfonics. That and Samuel l. talking AK-47s! Big Smile Smilie
Parts of Jackie Brown were excellent and parts of it were slow and boring. Pam Grier, of course, was a treat. I've watched some baaaad movies for the sake of Pam Grier. And Robert Forster was a wonderful surprise- I'd never heard of him before but I really enjoyed his performance.

Tarantino has a talent for using his vast knowledge of movies in creative ways (like Scorcese. I've seen A LOT of movies but these two just boggle my mind with the scope of what they've seen.) He "speaks movie" like the monks I study "speak Bible." What I mean is, not many of the elements he uses are original to him. He doesn't seem to have an aptitude for developing original plots- Tarantino could never have come up with Being John Malkovich. But he has this tremendous amount of knowledge swirling around in his brain, scenes and characters and everything, and he combines them in patterns that /are/ original.

I'm actually not much of a Tarantino fan, but I appreciate what he does. I also appreciated the fact that after he arrived on the scene, I could talk about John Woo and people actually knew who I was talking about! What a nice change.
I'm a big Lee Marvin fan. He looked just like my mothers's cousin. However, as an actor Lee Marvin always played Lee Marvin no matter what the roll was, the same way John Wayne always played John Wayne. Big Smile Smilie[Edited on 19/1/2002 by Grondmaster]
Or Roger Moore always plays Roger Moore (culminating in his playing an obssessive fan in the Cannonball Run)
I never saw any Tarantino movie (oh wait, is Pulp Fiction one of his, I saw that one) but I heard he's a great director... Is he? I liked Pulp Fiction. Smile Smilie
It's a funny thing, I liked Pulp Fiction the first time I saw it, but then I saw it two more times and liked it less each time. It was still okay, just a bit boring. The holes started showing, I thought.
Tarantino was IT when he did Reservoir Dogs - urban heist masterpeice and then did Pulp Fiction - which after several screenings is tough to watch from back to back but with DVD is great because then you just zap to the best chapters.

"Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead"

FYI tarantino also directed Jackie Brown, acted in fFromDusk till Dawn, wrote True Romance by the awful Tony Scott, and in a general sense was the sole unique reason John Woo and Chow Yun Fat became house hold names in States and West. Although John Woo hasn't made a single good movie since he left Hong Kong.

Basically Tarantino is a very talented young man having diffciulty getting anywhere since he won so many awards with his first movies.

And because he takes himself so very seriously. He's like a high school geek who suddenly got into the in-crowd. He's always "on". Very tiring to see.
What do you mean, Jehanne, he's always on?
I only saw Pulp Fiction once, on the telly. Was good, but a bit weird, don't you think? And didn't he do Jackie Brown too? Heard a lot of good comments on that one, but never saw it... Smile Smilie
Yup, Jackie Brown was his, too (more his than Elmore Leonard's anyway- too bad). It's pretty good but it's uneven and it drags. Worth a look, though, if you have time.

As for him always being "on"... You know how famous people often have a public persona and a private one? Like Meryl Streep. There's the Meryl who's one of the greatest actresses in Hollywood and has a flotilla of Oscars and can do any accent from Minnesotan to Provencal, and then there's the Meryl who lives in Connecticut and is married to a sculptor and who helps with the fundraising auctions at her kids' prep school. When she's smiling at the paparazzi and talking about her clothes and regally winning awards, she's "on". When she's gardening and shopping at LeBon (it's a grocery store in her town- one of my friends lives down the road from her) and whatever, she's not "on". Normal people do it too, I guess. There's the me who can read seven languages (don't be impressed- I speak English only) and drags students through the Early Middle Ages by their hair, and there's the me who dumps pad thai on myself because I'm laughing too hard at Powerpuff Girls.
But Tarantino never lets any of that private side show through (which is fine. I'm not that curious and it is his private life after all). So he comes across as an aggressive loudmouth who constantly has to prove how clever he is and how much he knows about pop culture. Because god forbid he shouldn't be the center of attention. I'm not saying that's necessarily the real him, but that's what comes out in interviews (and his movies, really).

Wow, long explanation there. The "on" thing wasn't meant as a criticism really, just an observation. I should split all my posts into three- I'd catch up to you old-timers in no time! Big Smile Smilie
Oh! I get it now. Guess you're right there... Don't know anything about Tarantino myself either. That's probably cos he doesn't interest me... Smile Smilie
Probably just as well. He's a bit of a jerk. There are nicer famous people.
They say Anthony Hopkins is quite a jerk as well. Shame really, cos he's a great actor... Cool Smilie