Enough with Quentin Tarantino

[It's Damn Real!]

I'm tired of him, I'm tired of his shitty movies, and most of all, I'm tired of listening to his fans praise him as some sort of cinema genius – he sucks. Plain and simple. Sucks. I'd rather watch paint dry for two and a half hours than sit back and watch anything with this piece of shits name on it.

You want to watch a Tarantino film? Save your money, I can give you the break-down for it from beginning to end right now...

• Excessive dialogue. If you like talking, or listening to people talk – and I mean talk – for hours on end, you'll absolutely love his new movie, because it's going to be nothing but that (and gore, and gratuitous cursing). Not even Seinfeld can lay claim to this much speech about absolutely nothing.

• Someone's arm will get torn off in the goriest possible way and gallons of blood will spew from the wound onto the floor and all over the people around whoever just lost their arm.

• He will use the word "fuck" as an adjective, verb and noun in the same sentence repeatedly – e.g. "Fuck you, you fucking, mother fucker!", and "curse" words in general will be used gratuitously. If you did a find and replace all on any of his scripts, and you replaced every instance of "fuck", "shit", "******", "bitch", "ass", and "god damn" with "flower", you'd be watching a movie about a gory gardener.

• He will use the "n" word at least seven times, because fuck it – why not? It's "artistic" to use controversial means purely for controversial means.

• Someone will be raped, because rape is funny – except to anyone who understands what human decency is, and to anyone who doesn't actually want to bear witness to the devolution of human beings to their most primordial and animalistic behaviors – most of which are devoid of any semblance of civility, mercy or humanism.

• He'll rob from some poor Japanese director somewhere and pawn off their visions as his own. Oh, I know – he "borrows" from other film makers, right? He said it himself – "I lift ideas from other great films just like every other great filmmaker." So, is that why the ear-cutting scene from Reservoir Dogs was stolen from Django, or why one of the fighting scenes in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is an exact replica of a scene from Samurai Fiction? K, thanks Quentin. Just wanted to make sure you were OK with being a thief.

• Someone's face will be smashed in with a baseball bat, a meat cleaver, a hammer or any type of object that will allow him to vividly allow you to watch chunks of their skull and brain matter splatter everywhere – because you know, ultra violence is OK when it's aestheticized.

• Samuel L. Jackson will play an important part and will yell, a lot.

• There will be numerous pop-culture references conveniently thrown into incoherent ramblings (that fit his excessive dialogue) that will somehow come off as artistic "wit". Wit, my ass. “Know what they call a Quarter Pounder in France?” No, I don't, and I don't fucking care, either.​

Enough with this fraud! See the forest for the trees, folks – this man is pathetic. Every one of his movies are a fucking replica of the one before it, and none of them are original, compelling or worth your hard-earned money. Please stop supporting this walking cock-sucker?

 

[gd]

Seem to be a lot of hate directed at Pulp Fiction there. Honestly, I doubt I've seen any of Tarantino's other films in completely, excpet Sin City, but he wasn't really the main director in that, right? Either way, great movie.

Back to Pulp Fiction. Included a bunch of talking, rape, blood, and Samuel L. Jackson. Of course that doesn't seem like a great film, but it just worked, ya know? The swearing was used often, but you don't notice it too much, because it's such a great film. You need some adult language at times as well. If Samuel L. Jackon's wallet didn't say "Badass Mother Fucker", the movie would've suffered considerably, I'm convinced.

Like I said, not an expert on all of his films, he certainly isn't the best director alive, but if you can make a film like Pulp Fiction, you can't be all bad.

Edit: Apprently he directed only one scene in Sin City. Still a plus for him.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

- Tarantino mostly steals from films you'll never see/never want to see/never be able to find and improves on them. So no biggie.

- I don't have the problem with excessive dialogue, it's excessive action that really get's my goat.

- Pop-culture references? Works for Shrek, at least Tarantinos won't date as badly.

Too much talking in Inglourious Basterds? Maybe The Big Red One, Patton and other talky war films aren't for you.

Don't like Jackie Brown? Best avoid Coffy & Shaft. 'Cus is you don't like a Tarantino Blacksploitation film then I can't see you wanting to branch out and see what ad a slight influence on it.

Obviously he's overrated, to a degree, but there are very few filmmakers who's work is as anticipated as his.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

It's not just Pulp Fiction, Disarray, it's all his films – Resevoir Dogs, Kill Bill 1 & 2 and especially Inglourious Basterds.

Pulp Fiction, however, was awful. It was a pathetic compilation of randomly interjected stories disguised as "good directing" because Samuel L. Jackson & Bruce Willis were in it. In reality, it was little more than gratuitous dialogue, cursing and violence conveniently wrapped up in a tight little two-hour package with a complimentary rape scene. Pathetic film-making. There was nothing compelling about it at all. No redeeming qualities to take home. The only thing it made me think about was why the hell I just sat through it without turning it off.

Tarantino is a fraud, man. You take from him all the things I've listed and what's left? A blank film reel.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

- Tarantino mostly steals from films you'll never see/never want to see/never be able to find and improves on them. So no biggie.

So what you're saying is that it's OK to steal, so long as you steal from what you won't likely be caught for stealing from?

- I don't have the problem with excessive dialogue, it's excessive action that really get's my goat.

And yet you enjoyed his work in Sin City? If I were Frank Miller, I'd be furious too.

- Pop-culture references? Works for Shrek, at least Tarantinos won't date as badly.

Because Shrek – a film designed to allow for parents to take their children to see a cartoonish film while still enjoying the content matter that features a few "adult"-like quips – is surely comparable to Tarantino's regurgitated nonsense? You're comparing apples to oranges.

Too much talking in Inglourious Basterds? Maybe The Big Red One, Patton and other talky war films aren't for you.

Too much talking in all his films. I have no issue with excessive dialogue so long as it's compelling. Listening to six morons jabber on about why "tipping" is or isn't an acceptable practice isn't the least bit compelling. It's like watching Seinfeld on crack.

Don't like Jackie Brown? Best avoid Coffy & Shaft. 'Cus is you don't like a Tarantino Blacksploitation film then I can't see you wanting to branch out and see what ad a slight influence on it.

Never saw it, actually. Don't plan on trying to get through it, either.

Obviously he's overrated, to a degree, but there are very few filmmakers who's work is as anticipated as his.

So what? It doesn't make him good at what he does. There's anticipation behind a number of things that are ultimately still failures.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

So what you're saying is that it's OK to steal, so long as you steal from what you won't likely be caught for stealing from?

Sure, why not. I don't see what he's stolen (or borrowed) that he hasn't improved upon. And it's not like Tarantino won't mention the shitty little film he lifted from and put it over as one of the best films he's ever seen.

I'm sure the film makers are fine with it, nobody was intrested in their movie until Tarantino talked it up. Residuals, everybody loves them.

And yet you enjoyed his work in Sin City? If I were Frank Miller, I'd be furious too.

Sin City isn't a Tarantino film though, is it? Either way I'm sure Frank Miller was fine with it. As co-director of Sin City he too, along with Robert Rodriguez, must've allowed Tarantino to direct the least action packed scene in the film.

Because Shrek – a film designed to allow for parents to take their children to see a cartoonish film while still enjoying the content matter that features a few "adult"-like quips – is surely comparable to Tarantino's regurgitated nonsense? You're comparing apples to oranges.

Apples & oranges, both fruit, in my opinion at least.

Too much talking in all his films. I have no issue with excessive dialogue so long as it's compelling. Listening to six morons jabber on about why "tipping" is or isn't an acceptable practice isn't the least bit compelling.

You either agree with Mr. Pink or you don't. Personally I'm on his side.

It's a fairly interesting conversation, one you'd have with friends or colleagues. Does it have a place in cinema? Yes, everything does.

It's like watching Seinfeld on crack.

People would still be taking about that episode. Not us English though, we're not that fussed about Seinfeld.

Never saw it, actually. Don't plan on trying to get through it, either.

It's his best film.

So what? It doesn't make him good at what he does. There's anticipation behind a number of things that are ultimately still failures.

He's better at hyping than directing. A good quality to have in the movie business.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Sure, why not. I don't see what he's stolen (or borrowed) that he hasn't improved upon. And it's not like Tarantino won't mention the shitty little film he lifted from and put it over as one of the best films he's ever seen.

I'm sure the film makers are fine with it, nobody was intrested in their movie until Tarantino talked it up. Residuals, everybody loves them.

Sorry, don't agree. Stealing is stealing, and pawning off others ideas as you own is little else but theft. Citing your influences is one thing, but stealing things scene-for-scene or plot-for-plot is criminal and negligent. How can a man be credited for being a "genius" if he doesn't even come up with the concepts for which he's credited for being a genius for?

Sin City isn't a Tarantino film though, is it? Either way I'm sure Frank Miller was fine with it. As co-director of Sin City he too, along with Robert Rodriguez, must've allowed Tarantino to direct the least action packed scene in the film.

No – he directed the "****e City" scene in it, which hilariously was viewed by a number of critics as the worst one in the film. I never said Miller hated it, I said if I was Miller, I would have.

Apples & oranges, both fruit, in my opinion at least.

Entirely different tastes, too. They don't equate.

You either agree with Mr. Pink or you don't. Personally I'm on his side.

It's a fairly interesting conversation, one you'd have with friends or colleagues. Does it have a place in cinema? Yes, everything does.[/QUOTE]

Matter of personal opinion here. I don't agree.

People would still be taking about that episode. Not us English though, we're not that fussed about Seinfeld.

I'm sure they would.

It's his best film.

Not according to critics – they say Inglorious Basterds is.

He's better at hyping than directing. A good quality to have in the movie business.

Exactly my point. I never said he wasn't a great propagandist – he is. I said he's a shitty director, which he also is.

 

[jmt225]

I don't understand how people can get "tired" of Quentin Tarantino; it's not like he releases movies all that often. Reservoir Dogs came out in 1992, almost 20 years ago, and since then Tarantino has directed 6 movies. 6 movies in 20 years (I guarantee by 2012 he still won't have a new movie out).... that's 1 movie every 3 and a half years, basically.

If you ask me, I haven't gotten enough of Tarantino. The most frustrating thing about him, to me, is that he doesn't work more often.

So, yeah... I'm a HUGE fan of the guy. I love his dialogue in films; I feel like he is absolutely the greatest dialogue writer today. Out of all the 7 films he has released.... Death Proof was the only one I didn't love. I don't care if Tarantino "borrows" or if his movies use too many cuss words or if there's too much violence.... at the end of the day, his films entertain the shit out of me and each and every one of them (with the exception of Death Proof) all stand the test time and I can watch them over and over and over again. I cannot say that about many other filmmakers work.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

It's a slap in the face to real film-makers like Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Memento, Insomnia), Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, 2001: A Space Odyssey), David Lynch (Mulholland Dr., Blue Velvet, Dune, Lost Highway), Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Last Temptation of Christ, The Departed, Gangs of New York, Casino, Goodfellas), Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading, The Big Lebowski), Steven Soderbergh (Michael Clayton, A Scanner Darkly, Syrianna, Pleasantville), etc. that you even consider Quentin Tarantino in the same breathe as them, man, honestly.

Tarantino is little more than a fan with a camera and an uncanny ability to con the hard-working public into buying his bullshit. You know what he was before he became famous? A video-store clerk. You know what he should still be? A video-store clerk.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I'm also a fan of Tarantino's. Are all his movies great? No. They most certainly aren't, but I do like the bulk of his films. While I did like the film, I do feel Inglorious Basterds can be overrated. The best thing about that movie was Christoph Waltz's performance as the sadistic Colonel. I wasn't too thrilled about everything else.

Pulp Fiction put Tarantino on the map, and that film helped propel him to the status he has now. I don't know how anyone couldn't love the dialouge in his films. The man can keep you hooked for a good 10 or 15 minutes by just having has characters talk. Kevin Smith is also good at this, but mainly on the comedy side of things. Trust me, there are other big name directors who are far more overrated or worse than Tarantino. M.Night Shyamalan and Michael Mann are two names I can think of.

 

[jmt225]

It's a slap in the face to real film-makers like Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Memento, Insomnia), Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, 2001: A Space Odyssey), David Lynch (Mulholland Dr., Blue Velvet, Dune, Lost Highway), Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Last Temptation of Christ, The Departed, Gangs of New York, Casino, Goodfellas), Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading, The Big Lebowski), Steven Soderbergh (Michael Clayton, A Scanner Darkly, Syrianna, Pleasantville), etc. that you even consider Quentin Tarantino in the same breathe as them, man, honestly.

I love how you mention A Clockwork Orange, when earlier you had this to say about Quentin Tarantino:

Someone will be raped, because rape is funny – except to anyone who understands what human decency is, and to anyone who doesn't actually want to bear witness to the devolution of human beings to their most primordial and animalistic behaviors – most of which are devoid of any semblance of civility, mercy or humanism.

Hypocritical, much?

Anyways, Tarantino writes dialogue better than any of the guys you mentioned. That's a complete fact.

And as far as a director, I wouldn't say he's better than all those guys, but I will tell you this... not one of those names could have ever put together the fight scenes Tarantino was able to do in the Kill Bill movies. Also, while I'm not a fan of Death Proof, that car chase scene in that movie was fucking spectacular and easily one of the greatest car chase scenes ever filmed.

Moreover, just like those names above, Tarantino has a knack for casting and getting the absolute best performances from his actors. When has Travolta been as good as he was in Pulp Fiction? Has Uma Thurman had any great performance outside of Tarantino's films? Would Samuel L. Jackson have an Oscar nomination if it weren't for Tarantino? Who the fuck was Christoph Waltz before Inglourious Basterds?

Lastly, Tarantino is also fantastic with set designs and what not. Inglourious Basterds and both Kill Bills were both beautiful, beautiful looking movies; there's absolutely no denying that.

Tarantino is little more than a fan with a camera and an uncanny ability to con the hard-working public into buying his bullshit. You know what he was before he became famous? A video-store clerk. You know what he should still be? A video-store clerk.

Personally, I find it extremely impressive that he could go from being a lonely video-store clerk making minimum wage to becoming one of the most popular, successful filmmakers of all time.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I love how you mention Clockwork Orange, when earlier you had this to say about Quentin Tarantino:

Hypocritical, much?

Granted, but that scene didn't comprise the crux of that film. That scene – disgusting as it is – aside, the film itself is still a historical classic.

Anyways, Tarantino writes dialogue better than any of the guys you mentioned. That's a complete fact.

Why, because he's "witty" and writes an ass-load of it? The amount of dialogue doesn't equate it being good, man – good dialogue is compelling. What has a Tarantino film ever compelled of you? What did you ever walk away thinking, other than "wow, am I glad I wasn't so-and-so who got their fucking dick chopped off by an angry Uma Thurman", or "so glad Zed didn't tear my asshole apart like he did Ving Rhames".

And as far as a director, I wouldn't say he's better than all those guys, but I will tell you this... not one of those names could have ever put together the fight scenes Tarantino was able to do in the Kill Bill movies. Also, while I'm not a fan of Death Proof, that car chase scene in that movie was fucking spectacular and easily one of the greatest car chase scenes ever filmed.

So fight scenes make him a good film maker now? If that's the case, George Lucas is god.

Moreover, just like those names above, Tarantino has a knack for casting and getting the absolute best performances from his actors. When has Travolta been as good as he was in Pulp Fiction? Has Uma Thurman had any great performance outside of Tarantino's films? Would Samuel L. Jackson have an Oscar nomination if it weren't for Tarantino? Who the fuck was Christoph Waltz before Inglourious Basterds?

Uh, how about when he was in Face Off, Grease, Phenomenon, A Civil Action and a number of other films that are far superior performances than his role in Pulp Fiction? What does one film mean, anyway? So Pulp Fiction alone redeems all the other bullshit Tarantino has put out?

Lastly, Tarantino is also fantastic with set designs and what not. Inglourious Basterds and both Kill Bills were both beautiful, beautiful looking movies; there's absolutely no denying that.

No, his set designers are fantastic with set designs. That's not Tarantino's job. Next you'll tell me his wardrobe choices are Oscar-worthy...

Personally, I find it extremely impressive that he could go from being a lonely video-store clerk making minimum wage to becoming one of the most popular, successful filmmakers of all time.

So do I. Shows that any jack-off with an idea to popularize the visions of others can really make it in this country!

 

[SorgFamily]

No – he directed the "****e City" scene in it, which hilariously was viewed by a number of critics as the worst one in the film. I never said Miller hated it, I said if I was Miller, I would have.

First of all he didn't direct the "****e City" "scene" (which wasn't one scene anyways) which was actually called "The Big Fat Kill". He directed the ONE scene where Clive Owen is talking to Benicio Del Toro. That's it. I'll agree that he takes a lot of his "ideas" from other movies. I won't defend his actions but I'll say I like seeing his presentation of them. Without his remakes I wouldn't even know of these stories and I probably couldn't find the majority of the originals if I wanted to.

As for my views on Tarantino films, I love them. Except Jackie Brown and Inglourious Basterds and it's not like I hate them or anything they just doesn't hold my attention as well. My favorite is probably (no surprise) Pulp Fiction, followed by the Kill Bill movies. Reservoir Dogs and Death Proof were okay but I'm really looking forward to Kill Bill 3 (2014 according to imdb)

 

[jmt225]

Granted, but that scene didn't comprise the crux of that film. That scene – disgusting as it is – aside, the film itself is still a historical classic.

There were TWO rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange. That's one more than Tarantino has had in all 7 of his films.

Why, because he's "witty" and writes an ass-load of it? The amount of dialogue doesn't equate it being good, man – good dialogue is compelling. What has a Tarantino film ever compelled of you? What did you ever walk away thinking, other than "wow, am I glad I wasn't so-and-so who got their fucking dick chopped off by an angry Uma Thurman", or "so glad Zed didn't tear my asshole apart like he did Ving Rhames".

No, it's because his dialogue is INTERESTING. He's one of the very few, non-comedic filmmakers who can write a ton of dialogue while still keep you interested in the story. Those names you named... those guys couldn't do that. Hell, a good majority of them didn't even write their movies... just directed it.

So fight scenes make him a good film maker now? If that's the case, George Lucas is god.

Those were great scenes, bottom line; scenes that not many walking on this planet could pull off.

Uh, how about when he was in Face Off, Grease, Phenomenon, A Civil Action and a number of other films that are far superior performances than his role in Pulp Fiction? What does one film mean, anyway? So Pulp Fiction alone redeems all the other bullshit Tarantino has put out?

Did Travolta get any Oscar nominations for those movies? The answer to that is a big fat no.

No, his set designers are fantastic with set designs. That's not Tarantino's job. Next you'll tell me his wardrobe choices are Oscar-worthy...

Bullshit. Tarantino has a say in everything that happens in his movies, as all directors do. When you watch a Stanely Kubrick film, right off the bat you knew it was a Kubrick film just by the look and style of it. Tarantino has the same quality about him.

And yes... Tarantino does come up with wardrobes for the most part. He doesn't make them himself, but he comes up with the ideas of how he wants them to look, just like the set design.

So do I. Shows that any jack-off with an idea to popularize the visions of others can really make it in this country!

Then how come there aren't more "jack-offs" with the same type of success story?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yeah, Tarantino is a hack, and he's currently Hollywood's most notorious thief. His success comes down to two things:

1) He made Pulp Fiction.

2) Since Pulp Fiction, he's exploited America's aversion to foreign films by stealing wholesale from Eurotrash and Asian cinema, combining it with sitcom dialogue, and selling it off as something of his own making.

Now, let me clarify something here: I don't hate Tarantino. I think his films are highly enjoyable, but that's about all I can say that's positive about the man. Here are some things that Tarantino is not:

He is not original or innovative: I think this goes without saying. Commend Tarantino's films for being entertaining, but nothing more. He has brought nothing of true value to the world of cinema; saying that he does would be like saying that an American importer of Hondas, Toyotas, and BMWs should be praised for creating fuel-efficient and reliable cars of extremely high-quality.

He is not an auteur: Tarantino would be lucky to crack the top 100 greatest directors of all time. Many faux-intellectuals try to imbue Tarantino's films with meaning, but they're ultimately nothing more than hollowed-out, superficial flicks, much like those that his friend Robert Rodriguez makes. How anyone could not see that Tarantino is nothing more than a cinephile with a working-class mentality is beyond me.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Then how come there aren't more "jack-offs" with the same type of success story?

What type of success story are you talking about? People with hardly any film experience and education getting a big break? There's a shit ton of them, man:

James L. Brooks
Robert Rodriguez
Troy Duffy
Steven Soderbergh
Wes Anderson
Paul Thomas Anderson

Shit, man, I think the only contemporary of Tarantino that did go to film school was Darren Aronofsky.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I think the reason Tarantino is criticised for being a thief is because he comes clean about it. Bizarrely, his films are pretty much the most different thing you'll see in Hollywood so, while he's stealing from Asia or Europe or whatever, at least he's not one of the few dozen directors that monopolise Hollywood by running round in circles recycling each other's ideas.

Compare Tarantino to, I dunno, Lynch or the Coen Brothers and his films can be criticised for being unoriginal and superficial.

Compare him to, I dunno, Nolan, Bay, the Wachowski Brothers, most Hollywood directors and he's a breath of fresh air.

Besides, there's an old saying: art is theft. A good idea is a good idea and most good ideas have been used in the last 2000 years of human entertainment. Nothing is new. Is stealing something without realising better than stealing something with realising? Is indirect theft any better than direct theft? If someone uses the Hitchcock Zoom, am I allowed to go off on one about them being an unoriginal bell end because it was in Vertigo first?

I may well be a massive pretentious prick but I find his dialogue humorous, entertaining, tense and a few more adjectives - often at the same time. His films are largely amongst my top 100 and I don't find any need to attribute added meaning to them through bizarre theories about a gangster's soul being taken out the back of his head or whatever. I enjoy them for what they are.

This shot came from It Came From Terror Lake? This line came from Tokyo Gore Fest 3000? That jumpsuit is a reference to Enter The Dragon? Well, fetch me the gasoline - I simply must burn all these cinematic abortions in my possession before they pollute my mind any further.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I don't agree with most of the Tarantino hype but Resevoir Dogs is a classic. Pulp Fiction is just fun to watch. Jackie Brown was boring as fuck. From Dusk Til Dawn is probably my favourite Vampire movie of all time (not solely his work, but still Tarantino related) Kill Bill 1 was also boring as fuck, and Kill Bill 2 was better but not enough for me to say it was a good film, and i'm not even going to bother with Inglorious Basterds.

I don't get excited about any Tarantino film these days, but i will say that Pulp Fiction is an enjoyable watch, and i don't really understand how anyone can fault Resevoir Dogs.

Does he steal ideas? Of course he does.... just like pretty much every other writer/director of the last 50 years. Originality is dead boys and girls, that's why we have so much reality TV these days, because no one can think of any original fiction that people would want to watch/read anymore.

 

[Coco]

Not the greatest evah, but I'm not so fussed that I'd write a list, nor do I consider myself informed enough to do so. But what I do know is that I enjoy QT's films (Yes, JMT... Even Death Proof... Haven't seen PT though). I enjoy the "excessive" dialogue. Forgive me for saying so, but I'd rather listen to a bit of jibber jabbering than have a plot or central theme trampled to death for two and a half hours without even a hint of fresh air or a streak or standard BSing that you'd expect from real people. I don't need the lengthy jibber jabber all the time, but QT makes it play well. What's wrong with that?

I'd much rather take QT films for what they are, entertaining (which even our most avid QT hater in tdigle has conceded they are), than have some sort of silly standard about what one should walk away from a film thinking. I walk away from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly thinking Clint Eastwood is a total badass. Does that make a shit film? I don't think so. Of course I'm watching film from the perspective of a human being, so I might be wrong. Feel free to convince me how that's so. While you're at it, get me my film snob decoder ring so I can find some appeal in The Prestige. And then tell me what's wrong with coming away from a film with my only thought being of how badass Uma Thurman is.

Allusion to A Single Man removed because I'm getting off track. Yeah, this post is mildly disjointed.

As for ripping people off, why would I care? I'm not a die hard EurAsIndy mark, or some silly purist, so why should I be bothered that he's borrowing ideas from people he's going to give a rub by mentioning them anyway?

It's like getting my panties in a knot because somebody other than Ken Shamrock is allowed to use the ankle lock. I really wonder how people can have such a bug so far up their ass.

Umm, more random thoughts.

Hey, you know who else wrote a lot of dialogue and was considered gratuitously racey in their time? Shakespeare.

Where was I? Oh, yes. I don't need a wrestling fan lecturing me about how I've bought into a con. I think that's the bottom line I wanted to touch on.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Pulp Fiction, however, was awful. It was a pathetic compilation of randomly interjected stories disguised as "good directing" because Samuel L. Jackson & Bruce Willis were in it. In reality, it was little more than gratuitous dialogue, cursing and violence conveniently wrapped up in a tight little two-hour package with a complimentary rape scene. Pathetic film-making. There was nothing compelling about it at all. No redeeming qualities to take home. The only thing it made me think about was why the hell I just sat through it without turning it off.

Quite frankly IDR, I couldn't care less about anything else you say, and I would breeze through it and look for something more substantial such as a JMT or Tdigle post, but this particular paragraph I just could not abide.

Pulp Fiction, whether you enjoyed it personally or not, was one of the most important films of perhaps the last 25 years. Even someone who dislikes Tarantino strongly, such as Tdigle, would agree with that. "A pathetic compilation of randomly interjected stories" could probably summarise most films nowadays as easily as saying "moving lights on a screen with sounds".

And it's not like The Shawshank Redemption didn't have rape.