Author Topic: Tarantino  (Read 12232 times)

nkotb

  • Member
  • Posts: 6201
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2003, 02:50:00 pm »
I just think by making things so black & white you have the potential of missing out on a lot of things that aren't "art."  I wouldn't call AWK art, but that doesn't mean I cast his music aside.  In a similar vein, I would say the movie Happiness IS art (based on the way it's shot, etc.), but that doesn't mean I didn't absolutely hate the movie.
 
 P.S. Sorry to keep this going on needlessly; I'm just terribly bored at work, and terribly lonely   :(  
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by markie:
  NKOTBie,
 
 Personally I think everything is art, just that some of it is good, re worthwhile and some is poor, re worthless.
 
 So far Kill Bill has great style, some good pastiches and some entertaining value...... Now that sounds like independance day.

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2003, 02:56:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by nkotbie:
  Happiness IS art (based on the way it's shot, etc.), but that doesn't mean I didn't absolutely hate the movie.
 
:eek:  
 
 is there blood in your bm?

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2003, 03:02:00 pm »
lonely, and hungry? I have a tuna sandwich......
 
 Everything is art, there are degrees of quality. I am not sure where I would score AWK.
 
 I cannot believe you dont like happiness though. It is the movie that American beauty should have been. Infact AB is pretty weak in comparison. Happiness is certainly a movie with a message, you cannot deny that?
 
 However it is alzo a criticism of Todd Solondz that he is also not a humanist (Just like QT). Personally I find some of happinesses characters rather endearing.

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2003, 03:06:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by markie:
  Personally I find some of happinesses characters rather endearing.
I think the Jon Lovitz character is one of the more human characters I have ever seen in a movie, and I think that a lot of the characters in the movie are.
 
 actually I think that is where Storytelling failed, the characters just all seemed like a joke, unlike in Happiness

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2003, 03:09:00 pm »
I like the Russian,
 
 "are you a lesbian? That is Ok, Vlad like lesbian."
 
 Or when Joy asks his profession, "Thief"
 
 Joy gets what she deserves, which is misery, a result of her being so shallow. What bliss.

nkotb

  • Member
  • Posts: 6201
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2003, 03:14:00 pm »
Ok, I can agree with your statement there about art.  I just don't think that something not being of a good artistic quality automatically makes it not worthwhile, which is what I thought you were arguing.
 
 As for Happiness, I think that it fell into the trap that many independant movies do, in that it was shocking for the sake of being shocking.  To me there is a very thin line between shock value working in a movie and not, and Happiness, for me, crossed that line.  There's no denying a message there, but I think it's totally lost in the over-the-top presentation.  Granted, I've only seen it once, so I should probably give it another chance.  Maybe I will just for you...
 
 And American Beauty, as trite as this may seem, is one of my favorite movies.  I think it's overall perfect, and definitely stays right on the line of being shocking but not straying too far.  Also, I found it beautfully shot and paced, which I can't say for Happiness.  
 
 As for not being a humanist, I don't think that necessarily matters to me in a movie (oops, almost called it a film!  Don't want to be a hipster...).  It appears that we'll never go on a double date to the movies...
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by markie:
  lonely, and hungry? I have a tuna sandwich......
 
 Everything is art, there are degrees of quality. I am not sure where I would score AWK.
 
 I cannot believe you dont like happiness though. It is the movie that American beauty should have been. Infact AB is pretty weak in comparison. Happiness is certainly a movie with a message, you cannot deny that?
 
 However it is alzo a criticism of Todd Solondz that he is also not a humanist (Just like QT). Personally I find some of happinesses characters rather endearing.

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #66 on: November 06, 2003, 03:22:00 pm »
but when someone says Kill Bill is a great movie, do they mean it is a great piece of art or just a good 90 minutes of entertainment? I certainly dont think it is great art. I think it will be realatively forgotten in a short time, like Jackie Brown. Pulp fiction and Resvoir Dogs seem to endure much better.
 
 As for american beauty, can you not see the parallels between it and happiness? It is the same subject matter. American beauty is so schmultzy, its made for people who watched the wonder years too much.
 
 Happiness is much grittier. Some of its observations are so great when you think about them more. Take the shrink that is so messed up. He cannot help himself, what use is he to anyone else? A beautifully damning view of pschoanalysis.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2003, 03:24:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by nkotbie:
 As for Happiness, I think that it fell into the trap that many independant movies do, in that it was shocking for the sake of being shocking.  
Couldn't one say the same for Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction?

Jaguär

  • Guest
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2003, 03:25:00 pm »
The thing that I find highly amuzing about this thread is that you guys are trying to have an intellectual discussion over a lot of crap without coming out and admitting that you sometimes just enjoy a little of the lowest common denominator of blood, gore, and sex.   :roll:  
 
 Give it up! It just doesn't work. It's like going into an elevator and hearing the fake Boston Pops version of Sex And Drugs And Rock And Roll.

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2003, 03:29:00 pm »
I like gore and sex as much as the next person.
 
 But without a good context it doesnt make a great movie..... Just like the matrix 2. The effects were stupendous. The lorry concertinaing was beautiful. It was still one shit ass dull movie.
 
 familiar with the term, circus and loaves?

nkotb

  • Member
  • Posts: 6201
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2003, 03:34:00 pm »
To me, Kill Bill is a great movie because a) it is shot wonderfully, b) the story is compelling, c) the action is fantastic, d) it entertained me to no end, and e) as a final product, it all comes together cohesively (music, visuals, story, etc).  Does that mean it's art?  I think, looking at it artistically, yes, certain elements (score/soundtrack, cinematography) are great examples of the art of film, but overall, it's a just a great entertaining movie.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by markie:
  but when someone says Kill Bill is a great movie, do they mean it is a great piece of art or just a good 90 minutes of entertainment?
Yes, there are very obvious parallels between the two movies.  For me, though, American Beauty strikes a much more personal note.  I guess in this regard, I am judging the movies for a personal effect and message.  Besides, I honestly think American Beauty was just a much more quality film in the way that it was shot.  Nothing about Happiness impressed me all that much.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by markie:
  As for american beauty, can you not see the parallels between it and happiness? It is the same subject matter. American beauty is so schmultzy, its made for people who watched the wonder years too much.
As for you, I do think someone could say the same about both movies.  I'm not trying to give a definitive "this is good while this is bad" argument.  Markie just asked for reason why people liked Kill Bill, which I'm trying to give him.  And I was also illustrating reasons why I didn't like Happiness.  I can easily see someone being disgusted by the violence, profanity and drug use in all of the movies we're discussing.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   
Quote
Originally posted by nkotbie:
 As for Happiness, I think that it fell into the trap that many independant movies do, in that it was shocking for the sake of being shocking.  
Couldn't one say the same for Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction? [/b]
And I think, if you look at any of my comments on this, I never try to hide the fact that I'm talking about being ENTERTAINED by a movie, and not needing it to be ART.  
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jaguär:
  The thing that I find highly amuzing about this thread is that you guys are trying to have an intellectual discussion over a lot of crap without coming out and admitting that you sometimes just enjoy a little of the lowest common denominator of blood, gore, and sex.    :roll:  
 
 Give it up! It just doesn't work. It's like going into an elevator and hearing the fake Boston Pops version of Sex And Drugs And Rock And Roll.

Jaguär

  • Guest
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #71 on: November 06, 2003, 04:11:00 pm »
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
 It's still funny.
 
   :D    :D    :D    :p

flawd101

  • Guest
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #72 on: November 06, 2003, 05:52:00 pm »
kill bill looked to stupid and boring but everyone said it was good.  if there was a hotter chick i would see it.
 
 GO SEE THE MATRIX!!!! DOESNT SUCK LIKE RELOADED!!!!!! ITS AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Guest
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #73 on: November 06, 2003, 06:30:00 pm »
Has anyone, but me, ever seen HENRY FOOL?

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Tarantino
« Reply #74 on: November 06, 2003, 06:50:00 pm »
probably...... It sounds good though, was it?
 
 http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/henryfool/synopsis-f.html