Did anyone read that second Twitch Film review? Holy shit. Talk about someone whos completely torn about Basterds:
"There are amazing characters who are each given equal screen time in well constructed scenes….but what we crave is to follow one group, the Basterds as they encounter all these other characters. The running time didn’t bother me, nor did the lack of action (hell Reservoir Dogs never showed the bank robbery but you certainly felt it. And Basterds does have a hell of a climax and tension throughout), but I think unless he and his editor find a way to refocus the movie on the Basterds themselves (or Universal/TWC change the marketing completely), the movie will be another example of disappointment triumphing expectations. Instead of “Triumph of the Killsâ€
RE: Frontpage. Obsessed with film article. Wow. That was something, Seb. Why even bother?
Out with the “you don’t get QT” comments again. I thought they were established as “go to’s” in the defending QT arguments by now…really?
And then everyone showing up from here to say the same thing. :laugh:
And then ending it with linking to Damon Wise’s article. :laugh:
Hilarious, man.
But, really, the most hilarious of all was this comment:
"The formats and stories might have changed, but Tarantino hasn’t. Why do critics denounce QT’s use of (or overuse of) dialogue on one movie and praise it in others? I’ll never understeand. Hell, RD takes place in in ONE LOCATION for 80% of the movie, and theres arguably more talking in that flick than in Death Proof."
hahahah, for real, man? Even hardcore QT fans will tell you that’s a complete and utter-nonsense comeback. I mean you’re asking what the difference in quality and entertainment is between RD and DP and why one is criticised and another is praised? Lame. :laugh:
[quote=“Pete”]
Did anyone read that second Twitch Film review? Holy shit. Talk about someone whos completely torn about Basterds:
"There are amazing characters who are each given equal screen time in well constructed scenes….but what we crave is to follow one group, the Basterds as they encounter all these other characters. The running time didn’t bother me, nor did the lack of action (hell Reservoir Dogs never showed the bank robbery but you certainly felt it. And Basterds does have a hell of a climax and tension throughout), but I think unless he and his editor find a way to refocus the movie on the Basterds themselves (or Universal/TWC change the marketing completely), the movie will be another example of disappointment triumphing expectations. Instead of “Triumph of the Killsâ€
[quote=“Kinick”]
RE: Frontpage. Obsessed with film article. Wow. That was something, Seb. Why even bother?
Out with the “you don’t get QT” comments again. I thought they were established as “go to’s” in the defending QT arguments by now…really?
And then everyone showing up from here to say the same thing. :laugh:
And then ending it with linking to Damon Wise’s article. :laugh:
Hilarious, man.
[/quote]
Its not really that funny to me. It actually disgusts me that ‘wet behind the ear’ idiots like that Ray guy are listened to by online readers like hes an authority on film. He should find another line of work I think. He has no clue what hes talking about. I just happened to read the article and felt like responding last night. I dont read that site or plan to keep doing this everytime a negative QT article is posted online. Been there, done that.
Yeah, that guy’s a douche.
Did you read the posts after ours? Every one defended QTs films. haha! Hilarious dude 
It was hilarious though. The talkback, not the article.
Although it was harsh, bordering on a hater, it was funny to see people show up there to comment, especially Dutch Masta’s. That was just embarrassing. 
After Seb, everyone defending it was from here then. :laugh:
I just went to the link from the twitter account. I read the article. I posted a response. That guy is a freaking tool, dude. He shouldn’t be allowed access to a blog. Pure waste.
It’s just a blog and opinion. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to write in one? Because he criticised QT? That’s quite biased. :laugh:
And that site was also the one that gave IB the best review of the bunch, out of Cannes. Funny. Obviously one person’s opinion differing from another’s.
[quote=“Kinick”]
It’s just a blog and opinion. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to write in one? Because he criticised QT? That’s quite biased. :laugh:
And that site was also the one that gave IB the best review of the bunch, out of Cannes. Obviously one person’s opinion differing from another’s.
[/quote]
We’re entitled to our opinions too, and in my opinion, that Ray guy needs to get bent. Absolute rubbish.
Its not intelligent criticism at all. If he says warped things like that about QT, imagine what other retarded BS he spews about other directors/movies? That guy isnt to be trusted on film period.
Writing a personal blog is one thing, but representing a film website is something else. No freakin way Id ever trust his commentary on film.
Everytime I read an article like that, I lose respect for the online film community a little bit more. Alot of these younger writers arent into film as much as theyre into being seen as hip and popular. Its not good for real film fans.
I also think the newest “in thing” to do is to bash QT. Its the cool thing to put him down, just like it was considered hip to say you liked him back in 1994 when everyone was praising Pulp Fiction. Something that QT never had any control over when you think about it.
[quote=“Pete”]
Its not intelligent criticism at all. If he says warped things like that about QT, imagine what other retarded BS he spews about other directors/movies? That guy isnt to be trusted on film period.
Writing a personal blog is one thing, but representing a film website is something else. No freakin way Id ever trust his commentary on film.
[/quote]
Precisely.
[quote=“Harry Chinaski”]
The possibility of IB being a failure still exists for me but the last sentence of the article puts the credibility of his writer to zero. “You’re forced to conclude that extreme directorial talent is a fragile gift that can vanish as quickly as it appears. It happened to Orson Welles and it has happened to Quentin Tarantino.” The guy basically repeats a cliché of movie history every serious movie buff would laugh at: the fact that Orson Welles would have done nothing interesting after Citizen Kane. The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady of Shanghai, Macbeth, Othello, Touch of Evil, Mr Arkadin all of this is the waste of a directorial talent. ;D
[/quote]
Orson Welles was a fine talent. And I believe what Billy Wilder once believed, and that is this: “You’re just as good as your best picture”. Unlike others who said “You’re just as good as your last picture”. Another thing to note about Orson Welles was the troubles he had with Citizen Kane, it’s as if Hollywood turned against him - the guy he pissed off was incredibly powerful, and so financing for his future projects were grim. Orson even said: "Film is 1% art, and 99% of it you hustle for money."
In Tarantino’s case, this is what is happening - he is making different films that deal with different genres. Some people will like it and others will just despise it without apologizing for it. The critics are very wishy-washy. One day they’ll look back and change their mindset on the film once it garners some significant award nominations.
One thing I have to admit is that QT shouldnt say certain things that will make him look too egotistical. I think him saying his film will be a “masterpiece” or whatever is a bit much. Its good to love your work, but to make claims like that before a film is even released really just bites you in the ass. Then everyone has such high expectations you cant live up to them.
QT never set out to be the Mickey Mouse of cinema though. He wasnt groomed to be Steven Spielberg or George Lucas. He really came from the indie scene. So I just dont see him becoming that kind of mega huge studio director ever. Hes always going to stay just a bit outside the real mainstream and make provocative, personal cinema. If I want to see a huge budget JJ Abrams popcorn film, I’ll do that too. But I want QT to stay true to himself no matter what. Thats why I’m a fan. Its not because of the awards/accolades hes received. Its his unique style of post modern moviemaking that I love.
[quote=“Pete”]
One thing I have to admit is that QT shouldnt say certain things that will make him look too egotistical. I think him saying his film will be a “masterpiece” or whatever is a bit much. Its good to love your work, but to make claims like that before a film is even released really just bites you in the ass. Then everyone has such high expectations you cant live up to them.
[/quote]
it might bite your ass but if it’s an honest opinion on your own work then it’s kinda cool. Unless your Michael Bay, who brags about the most retarded shit.
Hey Pete (or anybody), what’s been going on? I was reading some of the posts above and some people were talking something about jerk offs blogging about QT or something to that effect.
Ordell: Look at the QTA frontpage. Theres a link to a really ignorant article about QT that we responded to last night. Thats what it is.
[quote=“Pete”]
Ordell: Look at the QTA frontpage. Theres a link to a really ignorant article about QT that we responded to last night. Thats what it is.
[/quote]
Oh, that’s what it is. I dismissed it after the dude said Michael Bay’s last few films were better than QT’s last few films. But yeah, I get it now why the reaction.
[quote=“Kinick”]
But, really, the most hilarious of all was this comment:
"The formats and stories might have changed, but Tarantino hasn’t. Why do critics denounce QT’s use of (or overuse of) dialogue on one movie and praise it in others? I’ll never understeand. Hell, RD takes place in in ONE LOCATION for 80% of the movie, and theres arguably more talking in that flick than in Death Proof."
hahahah, for real, man? Even hardcore QT fans will tell you that’s a complete and utter-nonsense comeback. I mean you’re asking what the difference in quality and entertainment is between RD and DP and why one is criticised and another is praised? Lame. :laugh:
[/quote]
Yeah, FOR REAL, stupid. One was praised the other was NOT. What the hell does that have to do with the quality of the films. I’m making the case that “too much talking” doesn’t mean that the film sucks. If anything, I’m using RD as an example that a film with a lot of dialogue and really only one location can still work. I’m not a fan of DP. Other than the car chase I just didn’t get that into it.
Don’t act like a know it all. You’re the same person judging a movie you haven’t seen by the percentage of negative reviews collected. I mean if a film isn’t universily loved it must suck right? Rotten tomatoes has NEVER been wrong, right? You’re a tool that’s too afraid to go back on the BS you’ve been uttering. Obviously, if Seb posts a review and mentions to look at the comments, people from here are going to go and give an opinion. ray’s opinion is not much better than anyone’s on here and we have a right to a debate.
The dude tried to compare QT films to Bay’s for christ sake. You’re the one that is hilarious fam’o. You think you’re all high and mighty, the “one” idiot that’s willing to challenge the QT “fanboys”, and the last line of defense between QT and greatness. Whatever, who’s on the high horse now? And I can’t wait to read more of your defense of this Transformer/Bay fanboy’s review of a film HE HASN’T EVEN SEEN.
[quote=“Kinick”]
Although it was harsh, bordering on a hater, it was funny to see people show up there to comment, especially Dutch Masta’s. That was just embarrassing.
After Seb, everyone defending it was from here then. :laugh:
[/quote]
Embarassing? It must be embarassing for you to know that you spend a lot of time on a QT fan site forum countering QT fan’s adoration of any his films right? No? Well, you should be embarassed.
Funny that YOU mention “harsh and bordering on a hater” when that describes you PERFECTLY when it comes to QT. Hell, if I remember correctly, you said something to the effect that if QT doesn’t deliver for you then you’d be convinced he was a hack, and that RD and PF were just lucky shots in the dark.
Well guess what stupid, there are people who liked JB, KB, and yes even DP. Two of which I find VERY entertaining and I watch regularly. You try to get us to respect and value all opinions, but it’s you who is quick to throw up your arms in disgust. Get off my d**k, and I really wish weasels like you could say things like you say to my face more often, it’d make for an interesting encounter.
[quote=“Kinick”]
It’s just a blog and opinion. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to write in one? Because he criticised QT? That’s quite biased. :laugh:
And that site was also the one that gave IB the best review of the bunch, out of Cannes. Funny. Obviously one person’s opinion differing from another’s.
[/quote]
Not because he criticized QT, but because he compared QT to a hack director and had the balls to try to justify it. We post on a QT fan site regulary, and Seb the webmaster posted a link, of course he was going to hear from us. Like I said in my replies, having an opinion has to go both ways (pause, lol). If you’re willing to dish it out you should be willing to accept the reprecussions and have some evidence to back up your claim.
Best reviews? ooooooohhhhh, so that makes it okay to compare QT to Bay? You’re stupid. When are you going to learn that reviews don’t mean anything, good or bad. A movie can be reviewed great and still suck, for me anyway.
But continue, I really didn’t expect not to hear you bitch and moan about how you’re right and everyone will eventually be proven wrong about QT. Your mission is one that I truely am glad I don’t understand. You know there are Gay republican senators that vote for anti-gay right laws in the US? That’s you, you’re the QTA gay republican. I hope your face melts off as your’re waiting in line to see IB. LOL
Snigger, snigger.
[quote=“Dutch_Masta”]
Yeah, FOR REAL, stupid. One was praised the other was NOT. What the hell does that have to do with the quality of the films. I’m making the case that “too much talking” doesn’t mean that the film sucks. If anything, I’m using RD as an example that a film with a lot of dialogue and really only one location can still work. I’m not a fan of DP. Other than the car chase I just didn’t get that into it.[/quote]
Then why the Hell did you post this?: [quote]Why do critics denounce QT’s use of (or overuse of) dialogue on one movie and praise it in others? I’ll never understeand. Hell, RD takes place in in ONE LOCATION for 80% of the movie, and theres arguably more talking in that flick than in Death Proof.[/quote]
Talk about idiotic, hi.
[quote=“Kinick”]
Snigger, snigger.
Then why the Hell did you post this?:
Talk about idiotic, hi.
[/quote]
WOW, the answer is right in front of your face.
He’s making the case that the reason why KB and DP sucked is because or partly because they were “talk-fests”. I’m simply ponting out the fact that RD (especially), PF, and JB can be considered “talk-fests” as well. Just cause there’s a lot of talking doesn’t mean the movie sucks.
Anything else moron?