Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Jesse Blough, May 26, 2005.
Amen. Nice to see her liberated from the weekly banality of Charmed.
Trailer is out for "Grindhouse". Looks amazing... captured the feel of the previews from the 1970s perfectly...
I'm definitely biased but that looks freaking awesome!
Thanks for the link.
I wasn't alive for the 70s so may I remark that that looks really odd.
Egad. Pants.... getting.... tighter.....
Holy crap that looks like fun.
I just don't get it. Why do OT and RR get away with just copying crap from the 70s and 80s, that a good amount of the time wasn't good in the first place?
To be honest, this looks terrible.
Based upon this trailer, exactly what movies are they are copying? I don't ever remember seeing a movie with a chick with a machine gun for a leg.
I think the big difference is that a lot of exploitation movies in the past were sold based on their poster art. It didn't matter if the movies were crap (and most of them were), because distributors knew they would get an audience and by the time word of mouth kicked in, it would be gone, replaced by some other promise of illicit thrills.
Tarantino and Rodriguez take that a step further by trying to deliver on the promise. I'll be the first to admit that they're not always successful, but darned if they don't try. And it doesn't hurt that they have a decent amount of money to work with -- something those poor bastards turning out Z-grade stuff for drive-ins never had. So where they would show you a poster featuring a beautiful girl with a gun for a leg and you'd see the movie and not only was there no gun, but no beautiful girl; T and R say, "Let's have a beautiful girl with a gun for a leg," and go crazy. Bless their little hearts!
Looks like the publicity photo given Yahoo has been deliberately reversed. In the trailer it's clear that the gun is attached to Rose's right leg not her left.
Perhaps that the sort of thing Grindhouse wants to do, put in those little things that happen on low budget films.
"To be honest, this looks terrible."
The machine gun leg goes a bit overboard I think.
Ha ha ha! I love the complete opposite reactions this is getting. People are loving the idea or hating it. One thing I've always liked about Tarantino is that he doesn't compormise one bit. No gray area at all. He does what gets him hard and if anyone else likes it, then that's a bonus to him. I think Grindhouse is going to be the most kick ass movie of 2007. Looks like Kurt Russell's best work since the early 80s. Tom Savini is going to be so great.
Here's my point of view. This is like getting the best chefs in the world to make a hamburger. Yeah its just a hamburger, but goddamn, does it taste good!
I understand this thinking. But if anyone else was making this film, no one would care.
Tarantino I really do love but it feels like he just takes whatever style of film he wants, takes a Scorsese take on the situation, and then throws everything but the kitchen sink in.
People who don't like Tarantino (though I acknowledge your saying that you do like him, Gabriel) seem to say this kind of thing a lot, which I can never understand. "Nobody would like his movies if it was someone else doing them," "it's only his name on it that gets people excited," etc. Well, YEAH, given his track record, people are going to be excited for his particular take on things. Fans of his like and appreciate his style. I really don't get why he seems to prompt so much criticism along the lines of "people don't REALLY like his movies, they just say so because they want to look cool." Um, OK, whatever.
And Raging Bull was Requiem For A Heavyweight mixed with On The Waterfront meets Sonny Corleone.
Can't we just avoid the 'Scorsese Light' kind of insults? I mean what is gained by the 'well he's not as good as John Ford' kind of comment?
To my way of thinking, Tarantino is a very honest kind of director who references other people's work so directly that many film fans get the reference. As opposed to those that just 'borrow' ideas and aren't as forthcoming.
Btw, I LOVE After Hours, but I sure don't get any strong connection to Pulp Fiction.
Now with Kurt Russell added, this will be the greatest movie ever made.
"But if anyone else was making this film, no one would care."
This I also respectfully disagree with. I love these kinds of films when they deliver on the crazy thrills that they promise. I don't care who's behind the camera as long as they keep the story interesting and moving.
The entire date sequence for me is After Hours. Also the scene with Mr. Leather felt like a take on Horst.
Honestly though I can't explain it. I just get the exact same vibe.
Well, yeah, if I was locked in the same room with him, I'd probably want to strangle him, but I do like his movies
No problem. Cheers.
There is a long history of filmmakers that don't specifically talk about the meaning or specific points of their films as they believe that the work should speak for themselves. A perfect example of this is David Lynch. If anyone has a David Lynch quote truly explaining one of his films or even a segment of it, please let me know. It will be a first.
Tarantino is not in that category. Look at the 'reference notes' that are available on both Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs dvds. Point being that he is willing to give more than most.
Every director likes to keep some things to themselves. Like a good magician that should just be expected IMHO.