Star Wars Movies: any of them, do a diservice to Sci-fi and are impossible for me to sit through. Yeah, the first one was groundbreaking, blah, blah, blah. Metropolis was ground breaking.

The Passion: plotless, self important dud. If I wasn't sitting through it for free I would've turned it off as soon as the slow-mo fight scene started. Just idiotic.

Club Dredd: I loved Super Troopers but Broken Lizard really dropped the ball with Club Dredd. Brittany Daniel running around in a bikini the whole time does always make me pause on it while flipping through the channels.

Note on Natural Born Killers: one of favorites of all time, definetely Stone's best work. Tarantino bitched because he gave the movie substance and meaning instead of sticking to Tarantino's script which actually celebrated ruthless killing with absolutely no social commentary. Also, note that he did have his name put back on after the movie became popular. Tarantino is the most over-rated director out there. He does nothing original or moving. Just homage's to other people's work. I could sit through Kill Bill because the fight scenes were great. Kill Bill 2 was the biggest pointless borefest loaded with characters that were so cardboard it was impossible to actually give a shit about thier useless musings.

But Ian, how do you really feel about those films?

"Tarantino bitched because he gave the movie substance and meaning instead of sticking to Tarantino's script which actually celebrated ruthless killing with absolutely no social commentary"

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed Natural Born Killers, but am I the only one that thought the script was nothing more than a retelling of 'Badlands.'?

No one ever seems to mention that, but if you watch both those films back to back, you'll see they are much too similar to be coincidence (in my opinion).

;) Definetely influenced by Badlands. In fact I'd call a '90's remake of Badlands but the fact that it had such a nineties feel, more over-the top, more MTV morose, more violent, that it was timely.

Also, this does support my "Tarantino does nothing original" sentiment.

It was Stone that made Tarantino's script more than a rehash.

Hey Ian,

Tarantino isn't as original as everyone says he is..but, he is a very talented writer and director. Pulp Fiction is definately excellent work. You can't tell me the scene where Bruce Willis is being chased and ends up in that little store where he almost gets raped by those guys isn't TOTALLY original?? It came out of nowhere and definately stands out.

I'm not saying he's the best or anything. But, you can't dismiss someone's work because you don't like it. The fact is every single film ever made that was actually completed and shown in a theater is a success. If you don't believe that - well, that's like saying you are a failure for not having a theatrical release of a feature film. You aren't a failure. I would say Tarantino is a huge success and talent for doing all those movies.

I didn't like Kill Bill 1&2 much, but those movies killed the box office.

"The fact is every single film ever made that was actually completed and shown in a theater is a success."

This discussion seems to be more geared towards the subjective reaction to movies as "art," not just commercial success.

If you only use commercial success as a standard, then we should all be heralding the merits of "White Chicks" as well.
:)

Chris,
He's undoubtably successfull and I don't hate his work entirely, Pulp fiction being his best, but Pulp fiction was a conglomoration of a bunch of shorter stories that he had mulling around anyway. While the movie is entertaining (and I'm all for entertainment for entertainment's sake at times) it was really only original in its structuring. Really it had no point. I'm guess I'm saying I agree totally that he is talented but I don't think he's ever going to be in the league of Ozu or Fellini or Visconti or De Sica or Renoir or Kurasawa or contemporaries like Aronofski (the jury could still be out but his first two films blow the doors off of Tarantino's work), Solonez, Anderson, Clark, The Coens, Sophia Coppola, Lynch...
I guess you see my tastes...

Anyhow, he's good, I just think he's overrated, especially by himself :0

And I'm no film-snob either. House of 100 Corpses was one my favorite movies in along time. I can't wait for the Devil's Rejects.

I hear you, Luis.

House of 1000 corpses wasn't well recieved anywhere but I thought it was great example of arthouse splatterfilm. All-time classic, no, but fun.

I'm gonna throw Sin City out as one my biggest film disappointments before it has even come out. It cannot live up to comic or my expectations. Not to mention, Frank Miller behind the camera. Anyone remember Robocop 3. Eeeeeeeeeeesh. Just gettin' that out there.

ian, you haven't even seen sin city yet!

as for tarantino, i think his magnum opus is KB. so full of vitality/emotion it was. i think it's his "grown up" film.

Yi, I know I haven't seen it. That's the point. I fear seeing it because I've been a fan of the comic for so long. It looks great, I'll give it that. Who knows. Of course, I'm hoping for the best.

As for KB, my problem is this, and I'll bring up H1000C again because I think their comparable (I know I'll hear it for that) because they are both homage's to certain genre films. Zombie revelled in making a tribute to the horror films of the seventies, Tarantino seems to think he's actaully adding something to the genre (or mish-mash of genres in KB's case), furthering it, as though his touch makes it more than just a hack and slash flick with fight scenes that don't even touch the beauty and skilled choreography of Crouching Tiger (for instance). I guess I'm saying Tarantino's like a genre/story blender but what comes out isn't anything new, its just the same old frappe, just with different ingredients.

I'm really sorry about that pun...

re: Crouching Tiger, HIdden Dragon.

for people of the Far East (of which i am a member) CT, HD wasn't that great of representation of the wuxia genre. there are plenty better. even hero/house of flying dragon is not the greatest but i think these wuxia films are geared towards the West. if the West saw a more authentic wuxia film, they'll think it's too melodramatic/silly.

I think that was the point of Crouching Tiger - not to be representative of wuxia films, but to mix wuxia with a western sentament and come up with something a bit new and different.

As far as Sin City - I saw it yesterday. It's pretty good, not great - like my much beloved Star Wars films, a lot of Miller's dialogue is fine to read, but impossible to actually say. Still, it's super atmospheric and does good service to the source material, as well as the genre that Sin City came from in the first place.

That was my fear of Sin City. Alot of Miller's dialog works great in comic form but if it's stuck to to the letter when said I'd imagine it can come out pretty melodramatic.

Ah, well, I'll still see it anyway.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ian Poirier : That was my fear of Sin City. Alot of Miller's dialog works great in comic form but if it's stuck to to the letter when said I'd imagine it can come out pretty melodramatic.

Ah, well, I'll still see it anyway. -->>>

Don't worry. It works more often than it doesn't.

Reviews thusfar of Sin City have been good:

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19663
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19683