"There's only one long fight sequence and the emphasis is on dialogue and character."

And it isn't really that long, either.

As I mentioned above, I consider Vol. 2 to be a very different kind of film than Vol. 1.

Matthew

Ya' know, I've been avoiding this thread for a while now. Not because I didn't see "Kill Bill" (both volumes). But because, in my college days, Tarantino was GOD.

Yeah, I used to watch "Reservoir Dogs" at least once a week with my buds. "True Romance?" At least once a month. We had all the lines memorized. And there were "Reservoir Dogs" posters, soundtracks, and T-shirts in abundance.

During my senior year, "Pulp Fiction" was released and a whole sh*tload of us (if you count ten people as a whole sh*tload) headed out on opening night. And we were FAR from being disappointed. ('Course "Natural Born Killers" came out that same year ... and, while it was trippy and fun, it just didn't feel like a Tarantino flick.)

Well, soon after, we all drifted apart. A few years passed, and I managed to catch up with a bunch of them ... just in time for "Jackie Brown." Hmm. Tarantino's short in "Four Rooms" had pretty much sucked ... and I was, quite frankly, VERY disappointed with "Jackie Brown." The dialogue wasn't nearly as snappy as his earlier films, there was very little action, and I just couldn't envision Forster as anyone but the Captain of the Palomino.

Again, time went by.

And I'd pretty much given up on Tarantino. (Kinda' the same way I've given up on John Carpenter.) But then I heard about "Kill Bill." Wait... Katanas? Assassins? Mr. Blonde?!? Whoa, this could be GOOD.

Sure enough, it was.

Yes, I'm once again glad to be a fan. Sure, some of the dialogue could have been 'zippier,' but -- all in all -- I'm impressed. The action was intense and fun, the tributes to old martial arts movies and spaghetti westerns were well realized, and the characters were all seedy and original. And the soundtrack RULED.

"Kill Bill" kicked ass.

Bag,

Really? Jackie Brown's my favorite Tarantino.

Matthew

Sorry, man.

"Jackie Brown," "From Dusk Till Dawn," and the final short in "Four Rooms" are my least favorite Tarantino outings.

Each one is missing that -- for lack of a better word -- edge that "Reservoir Dogs," "True Romance," and "Pulp Fiction" all possess. I don't know. It's some kind of a 'blue-collar, snappy, philosophic, unpredictably violent' kind of thing.

I wish I could put my finger on it.

Also...
I'd already read Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch before seeing "Jackie Brown." That may have had an effect on my opinion of the film.

Well, Tarantino didn't direct From Dusk 'til Dawn, so it's not quite "a Tarantino film" -- sorta the way True Romance isn't quite "a Tarantino film." But, of course, both movies *are* his work, too.

I've yet to see that. I would like to, tho, even if I've read over and over that it's rather disappointing, for a Tarantino project.

I also haven't seen Four Rooms -- and this one I actually fear...

Matthew

Well aware of that.

But remember, Quentin was one of the leads in "From Dusk Till Dawn" and wrote the script. I'm sure Rodriguez got a lot of input.

I was a Communications major in college with an emphasis on film. But unlike a lot of other posters, I just don't feel the need to throw around a lot of names and obscure references to make myself seem smarter. I do know what I'm talking about.

The truth is, Mattie, if you watch "True Romance," it feels like a Tarantino flick. Sure ... sure ... you can tell Tony Scott directed it. It's kinetic and flashy and whatnot, but the feeling is pure Tarantino.

Get off your ass and rent it already. It's fantastic.

FWIW (and I think I read it this in a Tarantino subtitled 'A to Zed') Tarantino gave Tony Scott props for realizing his vision, which is something I don't imagine Oliver Stone will ever get.

Bag,

Jesus Christ. What brought that on? I wasn't trying to show you up or something... just discussing Tarantino's relative involvement in various projects. My.

And I knew all the things you've just told me -- well, maybe not that you were a communications major with an emphasis on film, but the Tarantino stuff -- I've seen True Romance more than once. Good film!

Are you saying *I'm* bringing up obscure references "to make myself seem smart?" I think you'll find that most regular posters to this forum have their varied tastes, and within each person's set of tastes will be some foreign/arty/obscure/offbeat/whatever films and filmmakers. If there were any reason for me to actually defend liking (or talking about) the films, actors, etc. I like (or talk about), I think I could make a case for some other posters being more "out there" than me. Where the fuck is this coming from?

Really, I wasn't trying to fuck you or anything.

Jeez.

Matthew

"This is the beauty of having two volume...ovie for Japan.

Go capitalism, go!


K

Whoa. Mattie, I apologize, man.

I thought you'd stated "I've yet to see that" in your post ... meaning, to me at least, you hadn't seen "True Romance."

So what did you mean by "I've yet to see that"?

Anyway, you acted as if I weren't aware of the fact Tarantino didn't direct "From Dusk Till Dawn" and "True Romance." I, in all honesty, was trying to be civil about the fact that not only did I realize that, but I also know quite a bit about film.

Maybe I took it a step too far. Who knows? No hard feelings?