| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TarTar |
Posted - 02/28/2004 : 16:48:23
In 1994, two films were released that have grown to be essential films for the college-age audience. These films are Pulp Fiction and Clerks. There a number of common links between the films: dialogue driven, pop culture references, long takes, homages to other films, low production (though Clerks is far below Pulp in that last category). However, in all of these common link, I would say Pulp wins by a long shot in every single way.
Tarantino has a way of making his pop culture references flow naturally; the character are just chatting away and happen to bring up things they've seen on TV to use as examples, or compare the situation to a film, and the humor isn't in what they are referencing but how they go about doing so. Smith seems to throw them in for credibility: like me because I like this. The references seem very forced to me. Randall and Dante speculating on independent contractors in the Death Star is quite clever, but the endless amounts of quotes from other films (No time for love Dr. Jones, I'll fuck anything that moves!, Star Wars quotes) gets old because they are simply quoting the movies without bringing anything new to it. Why not create a classic moment rather than just rehash one.
Tarantino's dialogue is very punchy and sharp and even though it sounds like it could be real, the flow of it is often cinematic, but hey this is cinema, right, so why can't flow better than real life? Smith's, however, is contrived, punny, and strives to be too clever ("I was making a broad generalization." "You were making a generalization about broads.") The vocabulary that his characters have is unrealistic. It's not that I feel that people can't know the meaning of the words his characters uses, it's that two many characters are able to access so many obscure words in their vocabulary without hesitation or putting thought into it. ("The store is obstensibly closed." Who the fuck says that?) Smith, once again, is trying to make his films seem more important, like they come from an intelligent source even though they resort to so many crude, easy jokes.
I could go on and on, about the long takes in Clerks with the camera nailed to the way not being nearly as compelling as the long take from Pulp Ficiton where Samuel L. Jackson and Vincent Vega walk down the hall discussing foot massages as the camera backs up down the hallways for over 2 minutes.
Tarantino is a much better filmmaker than Smith. Both of them clearly come from the same generation of film, but where Tarantino wants to give viewers something new, Smith wants to get by on regurgitating the past.
"You're muckin' with a G here!" |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bryanwex |
Posted - 09/18/2024 : 15:43:49
Ñòèëüíûå ñîâåòû ïî âûáîðó ïðåâîñõîäíûõ îáðàçîâ íà êàæäûé äåíü.
Ñòàòüè ñòèëèñòîâ, íîâîñòè, âñå íîâèíêè è ìåðîïðèÿòèÿ.
https://moismi.ru/info/704-kak-otlichit-originalnuyu-veshch-balmain-ot-poddelki-osnovnye-sovety/
|
| Stevio10 |
Posted - 04/26/2021 : 10:13:23
I only really remember him as 'pig vomit' in the Howard Stern movie Private Parts. |
| Newo |
Posted - 04/26/2021 : 05:56:36
He was great in Cronenberg's Cosmopolis too.
--
Allen Ginsberg says you got no soul. The ancient Egyptians say you got seven of these bastards, and Pharaohs got fourteen, what they get for being Pharaohs. |
| TarTar |
Posted - 04/24/2021 : 14:55:02
I liked in 2015 when Paul Giamatti played the scumbag in two music biopics: Love and Mercy and Straight Outta Compton,
My life is dirt but you seem to make it cleaner... reduce my felony to a misdemeanor |
| TarTar |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 06:10:53
Giamatti was also great in MAN ON THE MOON!
I think I always like him. SIDEWAYS was fantastic!
My life is dirt but you seem to make it cleaner... reduce my felony to a misdemeanor |
| Scarla O |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 22:46:46
Giamatti's great in 'american splendor' too. |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 21:01:57
speaking of whistleblowers did anyone catch matt damon in "the informant". what a weird and inteeresting story, very well acted i thought but the story didn't come across all that well on film.
10 years ago was when the first robocop came out right? right?
The waxworks were an immensely eloquent dissertation on the wonderful ordinariness of mankind. |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 12:39:52
floop I liked him in THE ILLUSIONIST. He restrained himself and was ok. Emily Watson is luminous and she knows where to dig (and she shares my birthday).
Did you see THE INSIDER or HOLY SMOKE? I loved THE INSIDER for having that great double-barrell whistle-blower story that was even more powerful than the main performances. And HOLY SMOKE is when Jane Campion really started getting good (IN THE CUT which followed was just as brilliant). The first five minutes of HOLY SMOKE (set to Neil Diamond's Holly Holy) is beautiful storytelling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxsSNHp9bVU
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| floop |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 11:51:53
quote:
Originally posted by TarTar
GHOST DOG, I remember this being cool but not entirely comprehending it as it was the first Jarmusch film I'd seen. I haven't gone back and rewatched it after seeing all or most of his other work.
missed GHOST DOG. loved that film. underrated..
tro - not a Paul Giamatti fan? i guess he has been in some serious stinkers (like LADY IN THE WATER) but i liked SIDEWAYS too much. enjoyed him in STORYTELLING too.
i was a fan of Emily Watson from Breaking The Waves, but then it seemed like she kind of became the go-to girl for Oscar roles. i haven't seen everything she's in though (nor RED DRAGON) |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 11:30:25
quote:
Originally posted by floop
i agree. i'm actually not the biggest fan of Emily Watson although i liked her in PUNCH DRUNK LOVE
With Paul Giamatti sucking up all the air in the room, I doubt any of the other actors will come out of it so good. I watched Eternal Sunshine again recently so I'm good.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| TarTar |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 11:24:57
What about RED DRAGON, floop? I thought Emily Watson was quite good in that picture.
Let us see, 1999 movies...
there was THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, which I loved in the theatre and it clearly did well but I never hear anything but hate for the film. I have not viewed the movie in years. Now we have a new movie of similar nature 10 years later frightening people; I haven't seen it yet, I've heard good things.
MAN ON THE MOON! That was released so late in 1999, it's easy to forget that the film was from that year. Or any year, really. That movie is in an individual bubble.
DETROIT ROCK CITY is fun if you like crap! And I kinda do, sorta! Just once! Craptastic!
I liked ARLINGTON ROAD, as far as it went (which was pretty ridiculous!)
DOGMA proved okay, but coulda probably been better.
GHOST DOG, I remember this being cool but not entirely comprehending it as it was the first Jarmusch film I'd seen. I haven't gone back and rewatched it after seeing all or most of his other work.
BUT I'M A CHEERLEADER was a fun time!
PAYBACK, hard to believe this was 1999, I woulda thought a couple years earlier, I'm sure I saw it, don't remember much...
SLEEPY HOLLOW, not a fan of this movie and that's probably a crime, but I watched it once a few years ago and wasn't impressed even if it was visually great... I just don't get Tim Burton's appeal... wait, no, I understand why people like him, but to me it's just kinda cartoony and obvious. Pee Wee's Big Adventure is his best work!
I'm probably lying about all of this as I've consumed a few brewskies...
My life is dirt but you seem to make it cleaner... reduce my felony to a misdemeanor |
| floop |
Posted - 11/12/2009 : 08:12:04
i agree. i'm actually not the biggest fan of Emily Watson although i liked her in PUNCH DRUNK LOVE |
| Scarla O |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 22:53:26
I know i shouldn't judge a film before having seen it but 'Cold Souls' looks like a derivative, pseudo-eccentric, opportuni$t piece of celluloid if ever i saw one - am i horribly wrong? |
| s_wrenn |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 11:56:11
It really makes them pop off the screen!
|
| floop |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 11:03:13
the cool way to write titles is to CAPITALIZE them |
| s_wrenn |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 10:41:57
Office Space
Oh, i forgot that.
|
| trobrianders |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 10:16:41
Being John Malkovich and Magnolia were great. I'd add The Insider and Holy Smoke.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| floop |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 08:50:25
MULHOLLAND DRIVE was 2001. that was a pretty great year for strange, unconventional films.. MULHOLLAND. SPIRITED AWAY. WAKING LIFE.
i would add BEING JOHN MALCOVICH, ELECTION, THE LIMEY and RUN LOLA RUN to notable 1999 films |
| s_wrenn |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 07:14:03
Notables from 1999?
IMHO there's Magnolia, American Beauty, Fight Club, Bowfinger (Steve martins last funny movie?), Mullholland Drive (im pretty sure thats from 1999) And Stanley Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut
And showing that history repeats itself, i remember how people said The Matrix was so revolutionary (special effects-wise) that it had to be seen to believed. And ten years on i'm hearing the same about Avatar
{And, yea, sorry for dragging this thread up}
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 10:12:06
Yeah, I thought this sounded familiar.
However...
I preferred Mallrats to Clerks for some reason, and they're both good. Its just that you'd have to go a very long way to top anything Tarantino has put out. Kill Bill and Jackie Brown, though not perfect, are excellent movies. I'm certainly looking forward to vol.2, which I'm told has more of the Tarantino-esque dialogue, rather than the, erm, Tarantino-esque violence.
 "Join the cult of scone/And succumb to the power of the cream tea" |
| Malax |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 09:47:26
Deja Vu Anyone?
I May've Joined The Cult Of Frank If I Knew What The Balls Was Going On.
*Adapted By Carolynanna* |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 08:55:16
The first time I watched Jackie Brown I disliked it, and had read Rum Punch a few years before and didn´t think that was any great shakes either but I have really warmed to the film since, I love that it´s so relaxed, it´s a usually hyperactive director showing us he can stroll as well. I haven´t seen Kill Bill yet, it is out here this week, as I don´t really want to watch it dubbed into Spanish (they don´t do subtitles over here).
As for Kevin Smith, I can´t rate Clerks highly enough but though his others have a few hilarious parts, I have come to the conclusion that for the most part he seems to be a spent force and sucks the big old donkey dick.
--
"You one of those right-wing nut outfits?" inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. "They accuse us of being paranoids."
"They?" inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
"Us?" asked Oedipa.
|
| offerw |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 08:03:50
Smith never lived up to the promise of Clerks and Chasing Amy.The crap Smith has turned out since makes me wonder where he pulled his first two films from.
Does Tarrantino live up to the promise shown in Pulp and Dogs?
I think not. His first two films were classics and his other efforts struggle to match. These films are not so bad though as to make one wonder if Tarrantino has any talent. He obviously has. |
| TarTar |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 11:57:39
I think my main beef with Smith is that he was able to fool me when I was younger and more naive. His films seemed to hold so much more importance in them. They seemed filled with insightful and intriguing material, unique views on life, and superb, pitch-perfect dialogue. Then I learned more about both cinema and life, and came to realize how contrived much of his material is, and plus, that Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back movie was simply an insult to all four of his other films. Each cameo or reference to his previous films was half-assed and empty, and then he just went and parodied 30,000 other films without making any of the parodies actually funny. That was when I knew he was no genius.
"You're muckin' with a G here!" |
| floop |
Posted - 02/28/2004 : 17:15:59
not to disparage your post, or Kevin Smith, but i don't think there's any contest in who's a better filmmaker. Kevin Smith has his charms.. i like some of his movies, and he's a talented writer. but his films are not cinematic. his scripts could just as easily be stage plays and nothing would be lost.. he's even admitted himself that he doesn't know where to put the camera.
as for the long takes.. i think with CLERKS he was using long takes with the camera sitting on the tripod because that was the easiest, cheapest way to shoot it. not for artistic reasons. Tarantino is so much more conscientious about where he puts the camera, how he cuts things together, what music he's going to use, set design, lighting, composition etc etc.. everything is thought about and planned out, down to the tiniest detal. with Smith, it feels thrown together.. point and shoot (even his bigger budgeted films)..
not that every movie has to be technically sophisticated.. and again, i think Kevin Smith has his own appeal. i just think Tarantino is infinitely more talented.
i like all your film threads though Tar Tar. keep 'em coming..
floop (stuck at work all weekend) |
|
|
