Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: April 22 2012 at 23:26
The point is style. Tarantino is a hack that lifts other peoples stories, strips them down, and makes stylish new versions that fans can claim hold deep meaning due to their aimless nature.
Reservoir Dogs, for example, is City on Fire (a 1987 film from Hong Kong starring Chow Yun-Fat):
That's actually Tarantino's best film as he didn't even bother changing it, at all. You know, except for maybe that dancing/ear cutting scene with all the deep meaning.
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: April 23 2012 at 01:13
I don't know. I don't see anything stylish about the fact that Winston Wolfe was writing things down on paper, or Jules buying Ringo's life, or " 'please' would be nice", or Wolfe saying that "respect for one's elders gives character". I suppose that it is safe to say that the film, in that respect, is a spoof of itself, just as an element of comedy.
Oh, well, this probably should be in a different thread.
Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
Posted: April 23 2012 at 03:12
Fox On The Rocks wrote:
OT Räihälä wrote:
I've only seen Pulp Fiction, and it was so disgusting that I haven't had any desire to see any other of his movies.
By disgusting, do you mean in the context of graphic content such as gore, themes, etc? You probably haven't seen Reservoir Dogs then. In terms of graphic content, Pulp Fiction is nothing compared to Reservoir Dogs. Reservoir Dogs might be the most violent, non-horror movie I've seen.
I don't want to watch unnecessary violence in a movie, and that was practically the main idea of that film. Even less am I interested in mindless banter that a big part of that movie's dialogue was. I still remember (I saw it in early '95) sitting in a movie theatre sighing aloud of boredom, and my then wife quietly trying to shush me. I nearly walked out shouting "what a load of scheisse".
For whatever reason, I've had encounters with people who seem to treat this movie as a religious object, that they defend. I've been told that I'm wrong, because the movie is excellent, and that my attitude is wrong, and that I just refuse to admit how ingenious the dialogue is, because it is so trivial it becomes a piece of art. To me that would be the same as to admit that mindless chart pop is good music, because it is so paska that it is a great new style. Unfortunately I can't see the art in that, to me it is just a waste of time.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2012 at 04:14
OT Räihälä wrote:
Fox On The Rocks wrote:
OT Räihälä wrote:
I've only seen Pulp Fiction, and it was so disgusting that I haven't had any desire to see any other of his movies.
By disgusting, do you mean in the context of graphic content such as gore, themes, etc? You probably haven't seen Reservoir Dogs then. In terms of graphic content, Pulp Fiction is nothing compared to Reservoir Dogs. Reservoir Dogs might be the most violent, non-horror movie I've seen.
I don't want to watch unnecessary violence in a movie, and that was practically the main idea of that film. Even less am I interested in mindless banter that a big part of that movie's dialogue was. I still remember (I saw it in early '95) sitting in a movie theatre sighing aloud of boredom, and my then wife quietly trying to shush me. I nearly walked out shouting "what a load of scheisse".
For whatever reason, I've had encounters with people who seem to treat this movie as a religious object, that they defend. I've been told that I'm wrong, because the movie is excellent, and that my attitude is wrong, and that I just refuse to admit how ingenious the dialogue is, because it is so trivial it becomes a piece of art. To me that would be the same as to admit that mindless chart pop is good music, because it is so paska that it is a great new style. Unfortunately I can't see the art in that, to me it is just a waste of time.
Watching it in the cinema I (and my wife) laughed out loud (raucously) through-out the film and were shushed by the other cinema-goers around us who would turn around and frown at us every time we laughed. Whether it was an intentional black comedy or not it was funny, even the cartoon violence, the banal and inane dialogue, Travolta's awful dancing...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.221 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Quentin Tarantino Movies
Topic Options
manofmystery wrote:
I don't know. I don't see anything stylish about the fact that Winston Wolfe was writing things down on paper, or Jules buying Ringo's life, or " 'please' would be nice", or Wolfe saying that "respect for one's elders gives character". I suppose that it is safe to say that the film, in that respect, is a spoof of itself, just as an element of comedy.
In terms of graphic content, Pulp Fiction is nothing compared to Reservoir Dogs. Reservoir Dogs might be the most violent, non-horror movie I've seen.
