success (Reservoir Dogs)
success (Pulp Fiction)
bomb (Jackie Brown)
success (Kill Bill vol 1)
success (Kill Bill vol 2)
bomb (Grindhouse)
success (Inglourious Basterds)
success?
bomb?
[quote=“zeppelincheetah”]success (Reservoir Dogs)
success (Pulp Fiction)
bomb (Jackie Brown)
success (Kill Bill vol 1)
success (Kill Bill vol 2)
bomb (Grindhouse)
success (Inglourious Basterds)
success?
bomb?[/quote]
“Bomb” as in which way? Jackie Brown is his best movie in my opinion and alot of others on this board. Also if you meant as box office-wise, Inglourious Basterds and Kill Bill vol. 2 is his only successes over a weekend span. I kind of see what your saying if someone looks at his films in the mainstream fan’s eyes.
I didn’t think Jackie Brown was a bomb, more moderate box office success. It didn’t do Pulp Fiction business but they certainly made some dough.
I’m not nearly superstitious enough to believe in this “pattern”, but a nice little observation it is.
Its weird how Inglourious Basterds did so well when it sucked so much compared to QT’s first three.
[quote=“Mr.Pink”]Its weird how Inglourious Basterds did so well when it sucked so much compared to QT’s first three.[/quote]
It’s obvious that it was too mature for you. Stick to QT’s less mature work, RD and PF.
[quote=“G”][quote=“zeppelincheetah”]success (Reservoir Dogs)
success (Pulp Fiction)
bomb (Jackie Brown)
success (Kill Bill vol 1)
success (Kill Bill vol 2)
bomb (Grindhouse)
success (Inglourious Basterds)
success?
bomb?[/quote]
“Bomb” as in which way? Jackie Brown is his best movie in my opinion and alot of others on this board. Also if you meant as box office-wise, Inglourious Basterds and Kill Bill vol. 2 is his only successes over a weekend span. I kind of see what your saying if someone looks at his films in the mainstream fan’s eyes.[/quote]
well I mean box office success and how the critics viewed them. I guess Reservoir Dogs wasn’t that big of a money maker but it was QT’s first movie and it was well received in certain markets. There was nothing critics could compare it to in terms of his movies because it was his debut. I think Jackie Brown is a great movie, but at the time it wasn’t well received critically and didn’t do that great at the box office. It was a movie very much in Pulp Fiction’s shadow, like Grindhouse was a project in Kill Bill’s shadow.
Jackie Brown made about $70 million worldwide (according to IMDB), on a $12 million budget. By any reasonable standard, that’s a hit. Not a $200 million mega-hit a la Pulp Fiction, but a hit nonetheless.
And as I recall, it was also quite well received critically. Rotten Tomatoes has it as 85% fresh, although I’m not sure how many of the reviews listed there were published at the time the film was released. And I’m sure most of us will agree that its critical reputation has, if anything, gotten better over the years. QT sometimes mentions that in interviews, where he seems a bit surprised that for some people, when it comes to his films, “there’s Jackie Brown and there’s everything else.”
In any event, I don’t see any way Jackie Brown can be described as anything less than a successful project for QT, unless one goes by the obviously unreasonable standard of expecting it to have matched the success of Pulp Fiction (which QT himself certainly didn’t expect).