I agree. His four movies are all brilliant, but he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.
Wash ,'War Stories'
Buffista Movies 4: Straight to Video
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
His four movies are all brilliant, but he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.
And yet, people keep giving him opportunities to do so.
Also, re: Reservoir Dogs -- has anyone else watched the deleted scenes on the DVD? They suggest to me that the original screenplay may have been much more straightforward, as they fill in a lot of backstory that the film is probably better without.
sssssssssssluttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Aw, man, I absolutely LOVE QT's guest spot in Alias. He's one of my favorite short-lived villains of the first two seasons (which is all I've watched). Maybe my favorite. Those episodes were awesome.
He's directing the season finale of CSI (original flavor).
I am a big QT fan. Except the dude should never ever act. REALLY not his forte.
I make an exception for his spot in Sleep With Me, but I realize I'm unreasonable about that movie.
I make an exception for his spot in Sleep With Me, but I realize I'm unreasonable about that movie.
The bit is hysterical. Like the movie a whole hell of a lot too, but the TOP GUN but is priceless (if another sorta-steal).
John Bloom/Joe Bob Briggs has a great essay about Resevoir Dogs in Profoundly Disturbing, and talks about the City on Fire thing. He speculates that maybe Tarantino felt weird about taking the plot from a recent movie by a contemporary, because he's usually pretty open about what he's lifting things from. And it certainly would have been better PR if he had, but yeah, it's not like Resevoir Dogs is just a remake.
He also makes an interesting argument that it's really a horror movie.
The critics who have dissed it -- for violence, for cynicism, for self-conscious artiness -- are looking for moral and philosophical content in a film that has none. It's a horror film, but instead of one Jason Voorhees, we have eight of them. And the most sociopathic of them all -- Mr. Pink, the character Tarantino modeled after himself -- is the only one who gets to survive.
The biggest influence on the style of RD, though, hasn't been mentioned. It's Mamet with guns. And Mr Pink dies; you hear him shot by the cops.
I'd submit that Joe Bob is mistaken. It's not a horror film; it's a heightened-reality tragedy of honor, just like its Hong Kong generic forbear. The point is that, between the Veteran and the Traitor, there's honesty -- apology for his treason -- in the end.
To draw from David's discussion of yesterday, it's very like the scene in Rififi where Cesar confesses to having ratted out his mates. He accepts the mandate that Tony le Stephanois execute him -- agrees that that is his due, takes it with dignity, and is perversely redeemed. Honor among thieves, all that.