[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Severian

Honestly, Lovecraft is almost a genre unto himself. Like, literally. Have you ever walked into the horror section of a Barnes & Noble? There are more books of fiction written by other authors in the "Lovecraftian" style than there are actual Lovecraft books. I've never actually read any of these, not even the ones with big names like Gaiman of King, because it's basically fan fiction, and I'm not super interested in that. But in addition to all those anthologies that actually declare themselves to be "Lovecraftian," there are also hundreds of books that are heavily influenced by Lovecraft's style without being overt tribute to him.

There's plenty of 'Lovecraftian' writers that I prefer to Lovecraft. I sometimes think he's like one of those bands that unwittingly invents a genre just so that other groups can come along and really perfect it. A lot of those Cthulhu anthologies are just pure fan fiction but there's plenty of them (The Black Wings series, etc.) that include stories that stand up to (and in many cases surpass) anything Lovecraft himself wrote.

Wrong thread I know, but if you're into reading writers who've taken the spirit of Lovecraft but led it into completely fresh territory, I'd strongly recommend Thomas Ligotti and Laird Barron.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you blew my mind there, with how well you put it.

and to clarify, with this i meant: i didn't know this was what i was feeling about it until you wrote it down

[Severian]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

the fight scene in the bar where the 4.5.6.7's are playing is awesome in KB2

That's in KB1, but yeah. Classic. One of the best.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

There's plenty of 'Lovecraftian' writers that I prefer to Lovecraft. I sometimes think he's like one of those bands that unwittingly invents a genre just so that other groups can come along and really perfect it. A lot of those Cthulhu anthologies are just pure fan fiction but there's plenty of them (The Black Wings series, etc.) that include stories that stand up to (and in many cases surpass) anything Lovecraft himself wrote.

Wrong thread I know, but if you're into reading writers who've taken the spirit of Lovecraft but led it into completely fresh territory, I'd strongly recommend Thomas Ligotti and Laird Barron.

You've recommnded Ligotti before, I think.
Though wasn't it in a discussion about the "Yellow King" character in True Detective?

What's the best place to start with Ligotti?

[demonrail666]

Yeah, loads of Rust's dialogue was lifted from Ligotti's book Conspiracy Against the Human Race (a non-fiction philosophy book that has a big following - I think Dead Battery's a fan) but Penguin's edition of Songs of a Dead Dreamer and Grimscibe is a great introduction to his short stories.

https://www.amazon.com/Songs-Dreamer...sap_bc?ie=UTF8

[demonrail666]

 

My Scientology Movie

The failure of this film to really reveal anything concrete (due to Scientology's clear efforts to disrupt the production) is in a way the best proof we have that there's something very sick going on there.

[Rob Instigator]

As a young college student we would watch our VHS of reservoir dogs and True Romance, and we got to know and love Tarantino, who made movies without all the fluff shit added by standard filmmakers, focusing more on dialogue and well framed character acting.

Pulp Fiction blew everyone's mind. I did not "like" it in the theater, but it was because i was so busy trying to determine how he was telling the stories and did not pay attention to the stories. Watching it again and again on VHS at home was awesome.

Jackie Brown was not what anyone expected and is an amazing film. Nothing in it was predictable.

However, when I saw Kill Bill, I found it very "standard" in it's tropes and story, but it was amazing visually. KIll Bill 2 I find extremely boring to this day. I ahve seen it thrice and each time I get bored and find myself wishing it did not exist, as it undercut all the excellent tension and dread created by the first one. I saw it as KBI being Tarantino's mashup of asian cinema, while KBII was his mashup of american cinema. american cinema is far more boring.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

As a young college student we would watch our VHS of reservoir dogs and True Romance, and we got to know and love Tarantino, who made movies without all the fluff shit added by standard filmmakers, focusing more on dialogue and well framed character acting.

Pulp Fiction blew everyone's mind. I did not "like" it in the theater, but it was because i was so busy trying to determine how he was telling the stories and did not pay attention to the stories. Watching it again and again on VHS at home was awesome.

Jackie Brown was not what anyone expected and is an amazing film. Nothing in it was predictable.

However, when I saw Kill Bill, I found it very "standard" in it's tropes and story, but it was amazing visually. KIll Bill 2 I find extremely boring to this day. I ahve seen it thrice and each time I get bored and find myself wishing it did not exist, as it undercut all the excellent tension and dread created by the first one. I saw it as KBI being Tarantino's mashup of asian cinema, while KBII was his mashup of american cinema. american cinema is far more boring.

Well, it's been a while since I last saw it. I remember being ever so slightly bummed that it wasn't "good" in the way his previous films were, and that it was more of a "is this good, or is this dumb? Is it both?"

Of course it's both. It's good and really dumb. And it lumps together odes to all these disparate kinds of revenge and hero stories, and it doesn't have any kind of consistent tonal flow to it. But I still think it's just great. I think it works. I'm not sure if feel that way now, but last time I saw it, as a film-watching experience, it still kind of blew me away.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Fair enough. I just think that was the moment where he kind of stopped evolving. Jackie Brown seemed to me like the point where he was really maturing. Able to make a film about actual people, rather than mere quoters of Tarantino-speak. I wouldn't call it a flop, I just think he bottled it because it didn't do as well as expected and he's played it safe (in terms of audience expectation) ever since. Compare the comfort zone he works in with someone like PT Anderson, who could've just as easily settled on churning out box-office and fan friendly variations on Boogie Nights but has instead chosen to take some real risks. Kill Bill for me is just the start of Tarantino becoming a brand rather than a filmmaker. And an increasingly tired brand, at that.

Can't like the highlighted bit enough. These days, I tend to look at "Reservoir Dogs" with the eye of someone who's subsequentely discovered all the stuff QT's "borrowed" from for this ("The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3", the original "Django", various Poliziotteschi efforts etc). Still have some time for "Pulp Ficton", admittedly, but for me, "Jackie Brown" is easily the best thing he's put together.

[MellySingsDoom]

(This one is from a good while ago)

 

Arggggghh! Basically, Massacessi put his (oh alright, Luigi Montefiori's) "script" for "Anthropoghapous" back into service, whilst also throwing in a huge amount of VERY, VERY BORING AND POINTLESS h/c scenes stuff. "George Eastman" (and the J&B whisky corporation) are present and correct, though this time Montefiori isn't going around bumping people off all over the place. This film seriously wore out it's welcome for me within the first 20 minutes, and I was wishing for a coma to hit me by the film's end. One of those "legendary" items that should have been thrown into the nearest landfill site and forgotten about. Avoid at all costs!

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

As a young college student we would watch our VHS of reservoir dogs and True Romance, and we got to know and love Tarantino, who made movies without all the fluff shit added by standard filmmakers, focusing more on dialogue and well framed character acting.

Pulp Fiction blew everyone's mind. I did not "like" it in the theater, but it was because i was so busy trying to determine how he was telling the stories and did not pay attention to the stories. Watching it again and again on VHS at home was awesome.

Jackie Brown was not what anyone expected and is an amazing film. Nothing in it was predictable.

However, when I saw Kill Bill, I found it very "standard" in it's tropes and story, but it was amazing visually. KIll Bill 2 I find extremely boring to this day. I ahve seen it thrice and each time I get bored and find myself wishing it did not exist, as it undercut all the excellent tension and dread created by the first one. I saw it as KBI being Tarantino's mashup of asian cinema, while KBII was his mashup of american cinema. american cinema is far more boring.

You must spread more Free Kitten albums around before repping Mr Instigator again.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by MellySingsDoom

Can't like the highlighted bit enough. These days, I tend to look at "Reservoir Dogs" with the eye of someone who's subsequentely discovered all the stuff QT's "borrowed" from for this ("The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3", the original "Django", various Poliziotteschi efforts etc). Still have some time for "Pulp Ficton", admittedly, but for me, "Jackie Brown" is easily the best thing he's put together.

Before I respond to this (and @demonrail666), I want to clarify that I myself was not actually disappointed by Jackie Brown at all, and I was in the theater the day it opened, already a fledgling fanboy. What I meant earlier when I said that it disappointed people was that ... it was not like Pulp Fiction. Everyone loved Pulp Fiction, and wanted more. What they got was a more subtle and slow-burning film — a romantic story, and an adaptation no less; not a Tarantino "original." But I have never cared about that, because it's extremely rich, character-driven more than dialogue driven (like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction), and it actually tells a more solid story than those films.

It's really the one film in the Tarantino canon that exists without cartoonish affectation or embellishment. It stretches out and allows itself to settle. I think it's definitely Tarantino's most mature film, but all these things aside, I don't think it's a better movie than Pulp Fiction, all things considered. Still, I think it stands apart from the rest of his films. It wasn't until Inglorious Basterds that he attempted to use simmering tension and subtlety to propel a film forwar again. And that movie — though very good — didn't have the the soul of Jackie Brown. I think it would be nice if he would return to this style before calling it a day.

Also, the films opens with an (unmissable) ode to the Graduate, which isn't the kind of film one thinks of when considering Tarantino's influences. But it sets you up right away for an experience that really is defined by the characters and the performances. And what a cast! Seriously.

I think the Oscars shut this movie out more out of principle than anything else. The lack of award-scene recognition did a lot to hinder QT and his rising star. It was probably because of/in response to this that we got Kill Bill, which seems so divisive among fans. That was Tarantino saying "fuck it, I'm going to have fun now and make my own brand." And yeah, since then, we haven't really seen him backtrack on this at all.

[!@#$%!]

NATHALIE

a boring french movie with a good premise: an upper middle class woman hires a stripper/hooker to approach & spy on her cheating husband. good casting too (fanny ardant, emmanuelle béart, depardieu).

the problem is that this comes across like a movie made by a writer, not a filmmaker. slow edit with absurd cuts, boring shots, a lot of talking and very little seeing. and no, it's not my dinner with andre. but this movie wanted to be a book or was maybe adapted from a book or... something.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Severian

I think it's definitely Tarantino's most mature film, but all these things aside, I don't think it's a better movie than Pulp Fiction, all things considered.

I get your point. Pulp Fiction was a game changer for Hollywood, in a way that Jackie Brown just wasn't, and was where Tarantino's sheer virtuosity as a filmmaker probably reached its peak. I just saw Jackie Brown as a necessary step in his development because it showed his ability to deal with rounded characters. I don't equate rounded characters with great filmmaking but it did show that Tarantino could handle them in a way that RD and PF didn't. JB is my favourite but that's just cos I have a preference for certain kinds of films. I wouldn't call it a better film than PF, though.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I get your point. Pulp Fiction was a game changer for Hollywood, in a way that Jackie Brown just wasn't, and was where Tarantino's sheer virtuosity as a filmmaker probably reached its peak. I just saw Jackie Brown as a necessary step in his development because it showed his ability to deal with rounded characters. I don't equate rounded characters with great filmmaking but it did show that Tarantino could handle them in a way that RD and PF didn't. JB is my favourite but that's just cos I have a preference for certain kinds of films. I wouldn't call it a better film than PF, though.

I have a hard time determining my favorite films by Tarantino. I can't really compare the pre-Bill to the post-Bill very easily. But Jackie Brown is in my top 3, no question. Haven't seen it in a while, but it's not in the middle or bottom chunks, certainly.

I wonder what his last two films will be. Or if they even will be his last two. It would be nice to see him do horror (you know he wants to), but it would also be nice to see him make another character driven piece.

[demonrail666]

Given the likely range of possibilities, I can see him doing something in the sci-fi/action vein, along the lines of say Escape From New York. Whatever my problems with him in recent years, he's a natural fit for that kind of movie.

But even given all that, I'd say Robert Rodriguez does post-JB Tarantino better than Tarantino. I get the feeling that a pastiche of EFNY by Rodriguez would be great fun, whereas a Tarantino one would just become really irritating.

Ranking Tarantino i'd go

Jackie Brown
Pulp Fiction (but agree it's his 'best' film)
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill 2
Hateful Eight (if you think of it as Carpenters The Thing remade as a Comedy-Western)
Django (minus the last half hour)
Kill Bill 1
Inglorious Bastards
Death Proof

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Given the likely range of possibilities, I can see him doing something in the sci-fi/action vein, along the lines of say Escape From New York. Whatever my problems with him in recent years, he's a natural fit for that kind of movie.

But even given all that, I'd say Robert Rodriguez does post-JB Tarantino better than Tarantino. I get the feeling that a pastiche of EFNY by Rodriguez would be great fun, whereas a Tarantino one would just become really irritating.

Ranking Tarantino i'd go

Jackie Brown
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill 2
Kill Bill 1
Hateful Eight (if you think of it as Carpenters The Thing remade as a Comedy-Western)
Django (minus the last half hour)
Inglorious Bastards
Death Proof

Pulp Fiction
Kill Bill (1 and 2 — seems silly to separate them)
Jackie Brown
Django Unchained
Inglorious Basterds
Hateful 8
Reservoir Dogs *
(Still haven't seen Death Proof)

* Maybe I've just seen this one too much, and it's lost its luster. Maybe it's been blown to oblivion by pop culture references and critical praise and posters in every college kid's dorm room. Or maybe it just simply isn't quite as good as it's made out to be. Or I'm dumb and wrong. All equally likely.

Honestly, I'm leaning toward the third option... just not as great as it's made out to be.
It's kind of a spiritual cousin to GoodFellas — another movie that's been hammered at by critics and praised in film culture for decades, albeit not to such a grotesque degree. But GoodFellas has only grown stronger with repeated viewings. I am still just captivated every time I see it. It has lost nothing, and time has only made it more obviously the crown jewel of Scorsese's career.

But Reservoir Dogs... I actually think the opposite is true in its case. For a few years it was my favorite Tarantino movie. But last time I saw it, I couldn't help but think of it as a warm-up for Pulp Fiction, in both screenwriting and narrative style. It's like listening to Rubber Soul after Revolver. It's solid, and unquestionably good, influential as all hell, but everything that made it original and fresh and great was dialed up to 11 two years later. Also, this was early on in Tarantino's maturation. His use of language in this film could have used a more deft hand. In retrospect, it seems almost arrogantly inflammatory, and that, to me, means that it simply can't be a truly great screenplay. Pulp Fiction truly eclipses it in this sense, as it manages to still push against taboos of language without inducing cringes.

I dunno though. Been a while since I've seen any of these at this point, except for Pulp Fiction (which I rewatched not long ago, and talked about in this thread) and of course Hateful 8.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Hateful Eight (if you think of it as Carpenters The Thing remade as a Comedy-Western)

This is an AWESOME way to think of this movie. This never occurred to me, but I would not be surprised at all if that was exactly what QT was going for here.

Wow. That's something. Nice call!

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Severian

Kill Bill (1 and 2 — seems silly to separate them)

It does but I found the emphasis on martial arts in 1 so boring, just because I don't like those films anyway. It's in 2 as well but doesn't seem as much, maybe just because of the change of setting.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It does but I found the emphasis on martial arts in 1 so boring, just because I don't like those films anyway. It's in 2 as well but doesn't seem as much, maybe just because of the change of setting.

Yeah, I think a lot of fans are disappointed at the time by the lack of swordplay in the second one. I remember watching the DVD commentary back in the day, and Tarantino said the first volume was total Shaw Brothers Kung-Fu, and the second one was a total spaghetti western.

Makes sense to me, except that if I remember correctly, all of Beatrix's training with Pai Mei took place in the second film, but still... the overall vibe was much more Eastwood than Bruce Lee.