I’m glad to hear he wasn’t offended because I don’t think any of our intentions was to do that and I will certainly read his next offering to see what it’s like.
I had no problems with his writing style.
I’m not sure the overt sex references were exactly funny as intended to be, and if a writer’s intention doesn’t succeed then can that piece of work not be considered a failure?
I did not laugh either, but I did not thought that it was meant to be funny
Then I don’t know what his purpose was for writing like that if not to be funny.
It was certainly intended to be funny, but… well… it wasn’t.
Had no problems in not finding it funny.
Me too, but it turned out to be slightly awkward for me overall.
Had no problems in not finding it funny.This could be the site's new tagline. ;D
Well I’m glad he’s taking the criticism well. We all just want him to improve and keep writing. A for effort.
I know this being an exploitation genre, its hard to keep things academic and avoid vulgar language when writing reviews about so called “trash”, but that is something I always strive for. Not to be pretentious or anything, but the reason why I fell in love with this genre in the first place is because I truly believe that the best that the SW genre has to offer compares favorably to the best that Hollywood has to offer. There is artistic merit to be found in SWs. I wouldn’t enjoy them so much if that weren’t the case.
I’m also all for opinions that go against the norm. I myself wrote a rather luke-warm review of the Great Silence on the site. If you think Once Upon a Time in the West is a piece of shit, by all means go for it, as long as you articulate properly with rational arguments why you think that is the case. Its not what your opinion is, its how you illustrate and justify them. I think this writer did an okay job of it but really needs to drop all talk about “titties” and the such. He did a pretty good review of Cutthroats Nine already.
Actually, it’s not his first review… he wrote a decent one of Cutthroats Nine a few months ago. He told me that this DRAH was an experiment, in terms of tone. I’ve read some of his stuff on other sites, he goes as deep as Scherp does, believe it or not.
I think very few of the spags come close to the best of Hollywood. I think, by nature, due to the sheer amount of them that came out not as artistic statements, but as “product”, it didn’t allow for that level of quality, in many instances, as so many of them were formulaic by intention. That’s what makes it hard for me at times, at this stage… I’ve seen most of the best. Sometimes, the only reason I’m sitting through one (Fidani, notwithstanding, because those are craptacular), is because I have to write a review about it. And those are the hard ones to write a review about, when it’s just another cookie cutter spag with shitty acting and writing. That’s where I guess I go for the humor element, as there’s often very little even to say about many of these films.
That said, as one who likes the genre, as well as a lot of other grindhouse fare, that’s what makes many of the non-Hollywood caliber still so appealing. Is Django the Bastard a “good” film? Scriptwise? Actingwise? Of course not. But it’s still entertaining as hell, for some sort of intangible reason. Those are the gems I hope to find from time to time in the 2 or 3 hundred I have but haven’t watched, yet.
Speaking of controversy, am I alone in my thoughts in thinking that Tarrantino is hugely overrated? I always just feel like I’m watching a spoof whenever I see one of his more recent films. I don’t know if he intends for them to not be taken seriously, but I never seem to be able to. Entertaining? Sure. But that’s about it. Sometimes, I feel like I’m watching Airplane!
And heeeeere come the knives… I can feel Sebastian’s steely gaze as he looks down the crosshairs at the back of my head… :o
Hmm… Tarantino makes entertaining movies. They are meant to be fun. And they aren’t overrated for me. One can state this is not his cup of tea. But Tarantino is simply a master in this type of movies.
I agree, they are extraordinarily entertaining. I just think that he gets a bit more credit than due.
Tarantino hasn´t made a decent film since 1997.
I wouldn’t go as far as that, but I don’t think he made a film as good as Jackie Brown since.
Nah, I recently re-watched Kill Bill, and it was until then that I understood what a fantastic film it is. It is a true masterpiece of cinema.
Here is a masterful scene done with one camera movement which makes a one and a half circular motion and becomes the building-up for the then to follow battle at the House of Green Leaves:
Reminds me of the opening shot of Touch of Evil.
And death Proof and Inglorious Basterds are excellent too.
I like the Kill Bill dualogy(?) and Inglorious Basterds a lot (I haven’t seen either Death Proof or Django Unchained yet), but Kill Bill as greatly directed as it is, relys on it’s impressive direction for everything because for me there is literally nothing else there. No great script, no great performence, nothing. It’s beautiful to experience, like childishly splashing in a puddle, but alas it as a shallow as one. Inglorious Basterds is a step in the right direction - finally something other than Tarantino to enjoy - but it wasn’t as good as his first three. However, it seems like he is returning to that level quality, albeit slowly.
Enjoy the directors films alot more than I used to do, but like mentioned above to much credit is given to his films.
I’m a Tarantino fan, seen em all. But I have to agree, his later films were not as good as his first four (including From Dusk Till Dawn). The later ones just… seem to drag on. Now, I had fun with all of them (though Death Proof was a stretch), but they just didn’t have the suck-you-back-in factor the others did. Like right now, I really want to watch Jackie Brown, only seen it once but it’s really memorable. I suppose that’s something I would judge his movies by. Watch it once, then wait a few months and see how much you can remember.