brvheart 1,756 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I was so disappointed by Pulp Fiction. Don't get me wrong; it was still a good flick, but not even close to Reservoir Dogs. Reservoir Dogs doesn't lick jock straps. It cuts them off. Along with bits of other things...You're nuts. The acting in the last 15 minutes of Res Dogs is Entourage bad. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 You're nuts. The acting in the last 15 minutes of Res Dogs is Entourage bad.Using this "expression" is amusing. Doesn't mean your taste in movies is redeemable, however. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 You guys are insane. Reservoir Dogs can't even lick the jock strap of Pulp Fiction.Part of why Res dogs is so good is when it came out. Seeing it now is kind of dated, and so many films have come out after it that have been influenced by it (or QT's style in general) but when it came out, it was like a jolt of lightening, it terms of it's freshness. I don't think the acting is exactly bad in the movie, exactly. After watching all of QT's movies, I'm forced to conclude that the way he has actors act in his movies is a stylistic choice, an allusion to B-movies of yester year. However, I don't think Res. Dogs is better than Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction is his masterpiece, and I doubt he'll ever match it.And now, on with my thoughts about IB. I'll slap spoilers on it.. 1) I liked it a lot. It's an extremely strange war movie, like many of the 60's war movies, but of course unlike them and hyper violent. The strangest part about the movie is I'm thinking the whole time " okay.. how are they going to **** it up." By ****ing it up, I mean the assassination. Because, of course we know, that Hitler doesn't die, and Gobbels and the rest of them don't die.. so some where, some how they have to **** it up. So like the **** up in the bar.. the way they catch and kill the german movie actress, the way the Jewish girl dies.. all of that is alluding to a great big **** up... and then, instead.... all of them get murdered in an incredibly brutal way. It was like a weird triple level, because they tell you the plan, the plan is no secret... but you assume the plan is going to fail, so when it succeeds, it's an extremely WTF moment. 2) The jewish girl, Soshana ( or what ever her name is) looks like, the whole time, like a small busted Scarlet Johannson. Why not have a large busted Scarlet Johannson, and cast Scarlet Johannson.. she's half jewish anyway, so it's not like she would be mis-cast.3) I loved the jew hunter, and every scene with him in it. Stole the movie, imo. 4) The movie was too long, I thought. When a movie is over 2 hours long, I really think it NEEDS to be more than 2 hours long.. like you better pack every moment of the extra time over 2 hours with entertainment. I have this critique with many movies, that they are just a little too long, and QT is, among many things, a very indulgent director. This movie feels like a 2 hour movie that got stretched out.5) There weren't quite the iconic scenes and dialog that a movie like Pulp Fiction has. QT's movies always are compared to PF, fair or not, and they never quite live up to the Iconicism of PF. Part of it, I'm sure, is that so much of the film is in foreign languages.6) It was beautifully shot. 7) Brad Pitt was a little disarming in the movie. I'm sure he was intentionally supposed to be jarring, but he didn't quite pull it off for me. Too much ham or something. It was like his role in Burn After Reading.. there's so much... baggage that comes with being brad pitt in a movie, so much " oh look, it's brad pitt doing something" factor, that I am not really that comfortable with him. He gets Kudos for taking roles like BAR and IB, but I don't quite buy him in them. Maybe someone like Billy Bob Thorton would have been better, I dunno. 8) I offically have a crush on Diane Kruger. 9) 4.5 of 5. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 And now, on with my thoughts about IB. I'll slap spoilers on it..Um...Also, I preferred your previous response about someone liking Dogs over Fiction. Something like, "Your mom prefers anal to oral." Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 8) I offically have a crush on Diane Kruger.So your going to go back and watch the National Treasure movies repeatedly? Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Um...Also, I preferred your previous response about someone liking Dogs over Fiction. Something like, "Your mom prefers anal to oral."oops Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 So your going to go back and watch the National Treasure movies repeatedly?That movie was amusingly bad. If she got naked in the movie, that would be an affirmative, however. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Well, since there's no objective way of making this wager, as you can call anything you want a piece of sht, I will bet you that it has a higher than 65 metacritic score, if you want.God I should have taken this bet, though it's only a 69 ATM, I would have thought it was a littler higher. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 oopsIt's a little too late for that!Actually, I only read your first non-spoilered spoiler and then I realized that you had, in fact, not put spoiler tags on anything, but luckily it didn't spoil anything for me because I already suspected that was the case based on interviews with QT . Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 God I should have taken this bet, though it's only a 69 ATM, I would have thought it was a littler higher.Yeah cause $5 and your throat slit are really worth it ... Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 You guys are insane. Reservoir Dogs can't even lick the jock strap of Pulp Fiction.Whoa Whoa there fella ... take it easy. Do as BigD says and imagine the time and place of the movie. Then realize it is awesome ... not PF awesome ... but awesome nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I guess part of my "problem" with PF (which I did love) is that I read the screenplay for it before it came out. Probably "spoiled" it a bit for me. But I just loved RD so much. As you say, because of when it came out also because it came out before PF it took a little of the thunder away from PF. Loved how RD was shot, how the story was told, the characters & actors (except Chris Penn who should never get another role again), and the dialogue (even the QT "delivery"). It really does seem like he over-directs his actors and they wind up sounding like QT himself delivering the lines. Much like how most ain characters in Woody Allen directed movies sound like Woody Allen. This is also true for Mamet.I am curious how many people who think PF > RD actually saw PF before RD? I am thinking that many people who saw PF were inspired to then go back and see RD as a result.Strangely, from the trailers, IB looks like it has a bit of that "Burn After Reading" Coen Brothers quirkyness to it - where some of the characters turn into caricatures. For example, Jon Polito always seems like that to me, a little cartoonish, and it can detract a bit from the story for me. I am a little fearful that IB will stray too far in that direction. Link to post Share on other sites
irishguy 14 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I guess part of my "problem" with PF (which I did love) is that I read the screenplay for it before it came out. Probably "spoiled" it a bit for me. But I just loved RD so much. As you say, because of when it came out also because it came out before PF it took a little of the thunder away from PF. Loved how RD was shot, how the story was told, the characters & actors (except Chris Penn who should never get another role again), and the dialogue (even the QT "delivery"). It really does seem like he over-directs his actors and they wind up sounding like QT himself delivering the lines. Much like how most ain characters in Woody Allen directed movies sound like Woody Allen. This is also true for Mamet.I think that's a given. To me RD still stands the test of time but that's is possibly because I can't help but watch it and remember how awesome it was when it first came out. For most though I can understand Pulp Fiction standing the test of time better, Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I guess part of my "problem" with PF (which I did love) is that I read the screenplay for it before it came out. Probably "spoiled" it a bit for me. But I just loved RD so much. As you say, because of when it came out also because it came out before PF it took a little of the thunder away from PF. Loved how RD was shot, how the story was told, the characters & actors (except Chris Penn who should never get another role again), and the dialogue (even the QT "delivery"). It really does seem like he over-directs his actors and they wind up sounding like QT himself delivering the lines. Much like how most ain characters in Woody Allen directed movies sound like Woody Allen. This is also true for Mamet.I am curious how many people who think PF > RD actually saw PF before RD? I am thinking that many people who saw PF were inspired to then go back and see RD as a result.See, that's interesting. I would have hated to have read PF's screen play before I saw the movie. [art of what I loved about PF was the sheer surprise of it. I saw PF before RD, but like a couple weeks before. Actually, seeing PF was pretty much a water shed moment for me as a movie goer. I knew almost nothing about the movie when I saw it, I just knew that the critics loved it and it was nominated for an oscar. I saw it in the theatre, in an old style theatre with a balcony ( that is no longer a theatre), and it was just fantastic. I walked out of the movie just with my mind blown, and I've expected more from movies ever since. So it's extremely hard for me to objectively judge PF these days, and it's probably impossible for me to like another QT movie as much as it. Strangely, from the trailers, IB looks like it has a bit of that "Burn After Reading" Coen Brothers quirkyness to it - where some of the characters turn into caricatures. For example, Jon Polito always seems like that to me, a little cartoonish, and it can detract a bit from the story for me. I am a little fearful that IB will stray too far in that direction.Um.. I don't actually think IB has "Coen Quirkiness" to it.. at least, not burn after reading quirkyness. It's actually paced much slower. One of the things it really does well is make the nazi's evil. And what I mean is, often in WW2 movies, if they deal with nazi's as actual characters at all ( and not as nameless badguys a la Saving Private Ryan), often the movie will make "good nazi's" and "bad nazi's", making a moral distinction between say an average solider and an SS officer or something. This movie really doesn't do that. All the nazi's are assumed to be or proven to be evil, and even likable one end up being revealed to be evil bastards. Which makes for a fun movie. Because, really, aren't Nazi's the ultimate 20th century villains? They should be evil bastards. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I saw RD before PF, PF is the superior film. It's really not close, that doesn't mean that RD is not a great film in it's own right though. Link to post Share on other sites
keith crime 8 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I saw RD before PF, PF is the superior film. It's really not close, that doesn't mean that RD is not a great film in it's own right though.i saw reservoir dogs right when it came outpulp fiction showed what he could do with a little money but think about dogs - he wrote it bare bones so it wouldnt cost a thing and it was just a nuclear bomb going off - it's like the ultimate guerrilla film]and of course year Chris Penn wont get another role because he's dead - or was that a joke? Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 i saw reservoir dogs right when it came outpulp fiction showed what he could do with a little money but think about dogs - he wrote it bare bones so it wouldnt cost a thing and it was just a nuclear bomb going off - it's like the ultimate guerrilla film]and of course year Chris Penn wont get another role because he's dead - or was that a joke?I almost put a little spoiler text in my post so people would know I realized Penn wouldn't be having any more roles. Link to post Share on other sites
theresa113 0 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Reservoir Dogs is a great movie. I saw it BEFORE Pulp Fiction. My boyfriend at the time brought home the video (yes, on VHS) of Reservoir Dogs and I was like... "not another stupid guy violent movie." He was like, "trust me. This got good reviews. You will like it."So we watched. And I did not want to like it AT ALL. I wanted to watch a chick flick. But I got sucked in.And I loved it. It was everything that I hated about guy movies but it was also smart, funny, intriguing and a real good exercise of character development. Pulp Fiction was great too... But I think my weakness is more for RD.Oh... and someone mentioned True Romance. I haven't seen that in ages but I remember that I really liked that movie as well. Maybe I will go see Inglorious Basterds tonight. (I skipped all of the spoilers so I have no idea if you all like it or not.) Link to post Share on other sites
runthemover 39 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 2) The jewish girl, Soshana ( or what ever her name is) looks like, the whole time, like a small busted Scarlet Johannson. Why not have a large busted Scarlet Johannson, and cast Scarlet Johannson.. she's half jewish anyway, so it's not like she would be mis-cast. I thought she looked more like a younger version of Juliet from Lostthe movie was ok. I enjoyed it. it certainly didn't feel as long as it was. Link to post Share on other sites
Theraflu 1,035 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I thought she looked more like a younger version of Juliet from Lostthe movie was ok. I enjoyed it. it certainly didn't feel as long as it was. I kept getting the Scarlett vibe.I agree it didn't feel as long as it was, although some scenes did seem to go on a bit too long. Dialogue isn't as biting as other QT stuff, and in the long run it won't be as rewatchable or quotable as a result of the subtitles, but I still liked it a whole lot. A number of scenes are fantastic, and I don't know if the ending could have been done any better. I also really liked the mixing of the languages, even though I don't know any of them. I really like how QT really builds suspense in different, unconventional ways. Link to post Share on other sites
Plus one 0 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Cant figure why the ss guy killed the girl at the end, if he was gonna turn traitor also. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Cant figure why the ss guy killed the girl at the end, if he was gonna turn traitor also. I think the purpose was character development, to show what a sick and twisted **** he was. There was no "reason" for him to do it, other than he's an evil ****ing nazi Link to post Share on other sites
Graydon 0 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Saw it yesterday. Thought it was great. I wish we could have seen more of the Basterds though... Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Saw it yesterday. Thought it was great. I wish we could have seen more of the Basterds though...This is really an excellent point. I would have liked more scenes with the basterds just being basterds. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Agree with most of what BigD said. Though it didn't feel long to me. Brad Pitt was good, but bad, and it's hard to put into words. I feel like it was on purpose, so I don't mind it, but people in the theater were laughing when he wasn't trying to be funny, just because his voice was funny. That annoyed me a little. But there wasn't a funnier moment than when he started speaking Italian. Eli Roth was fantastic, especially when beating the guys head in with the bat. Tarantino has a serious foot fetish. I was told this before I saw the movie, but man, it really comes through in this one.Can anyone make sense of some of the subtitle nuances though? Sometimes he translated, sometimes he didn't, and sometimes there were no subtitles at all. I think the times they had none at all, was because the other person in the scene didn't know the language, so it wasn't meant to be heard. But there were times the character would say Oui, and the subtitle said Yes, and other times the subtitle just said Oui. Then when the guy in the bar said Wunderbar, it just said Wunderbar. Some odd things like that, which must have a reason, but I can't figure it out.Agreed that the JewHunter was really good. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now