A Genius in our Time - Discuss

[BarryBreensBandage]

You on the whiskey again?

No, rather worringly sober and concerned that I am caught in some post modern buffoonery!

Well then just get out the whiskey!!!

[lawnseed]

Im in the mood now for a hot one. And maybe a cornish pastish..

Sweetness. sweetness I was only joking when said I like to smash every tooth in your head

Or that you should be bludgeoned to death in your bed...

Didnt make the top ten but.. It would now

[thejuice]

In the cinematic world, the only one that comes close to genius is Stanley Kubrick. No one else.

[lawnseed]

In the cinematic world, the only one that comes close to genius is Stanley Kubrick. No one else.

Eyes wide shut? Emmm?

[lawnseed]

Gerry lewis.. Comic. writer. director. producer. inventor. actor. Sound engineer.. Genius

[Hardy]

That explains a lot of stuff in retrospect.

[Billys Boots]

That explains a lot of stuff in retrospect.

Thanks. Made my day! 

[trileacman]

The problem I have with Tarantino, apart from his tedious films, self-obsession and nauseating arrogance is the fan-boys.

What is it about Tarantino that he attracts the attention of fully grown men who feel the need to w**k on about him at every opportunity? I mean I consider Sergio Leone to be among the great directors and think Nolan pulled off a few master-strokes, particularly at the start of his career, but I'd never feel the need to drive it down everyone throats by starting a thread on here proclaiming him to be a genius in our time. I'd agree with a lot of the sensible things said about Tarantino, an poor director with an eye for the set-piece which he can deliver reasonably well.

So to conclude and put a fitting term to what many here have described, Tarantino isn't a genius of our time, he's a f**king gobshite.

[muppet]

The problem I have with Tarantino, apart from his tedious films, self-obsession and nauseating arrogance is the fan-boys.

What is it about Tarantino that he attracts the attention of fully grown men who feel the need to w**k on about him at every opportunity? I mean I consider Sergio Leone to be among the great directors and think Nolan pulled off a few master-strokes, particularly at the start of his career, but I'd never feel the need to drive it down everyone throats by starting a thread on here proclaiming him to be a genius in our time. I'd agree with a lot of the sensible things said about Tarantino, an poor director with an eye for the set-piece which he can deliver reasonably well.

So to conclude and put a fitting term to what many here have described, Tarantino isn't a genius of our time, he's a f**king gobshite.

So in conclusion Tarantino is the Trapattoni of the movie world.

[tyssam5]

Same thing happened Jesus.

very similar

http://vimeo.com/59975315

[5 Sams]

David Blaine.

[Hardy]

Same thing happened Jesus.

very similar

http://vimeo.com/59975315

Excellent.

[Billys Boots]

Same thing happened Jesus.

very similar

http://vimeo.com/59975315

Excellent.

Very good.

[BarryBreensBandage]

The problem I have with Tarantino, apart from his tedious films, self-obsession and nauseating arrogance is the fan-boys.

What is it about Tarantino that he attracts the attention of fully grown men who feel the need to w**k on about him at every opportunity? I mean I consider Sergio Leone to be among the great directors and think Nolan pulled off a few master-strokes, particularly at the start of his career, but I'd never feel the need to drive it down everyone throats by starting a thread on here proclaiming him to be a genius in our time. I'd agree with a lot of the sensible things said about Tarantino, an poor director with an eye for the set-piece which he can deliver reasonably well.

So to conclude and put a fitting term to what many here have described, Tarantino isn't a genius of our time, he's a f**king gobshite.

I usually enjoy reading your posts, trileacman, and find this posting a bit odd.
A very pent up and angry response to a simple request for geniuses in our time.
And not only that, it is a very lazily worded response, saying you won't mention something yet mention it (fan of Jeffrey Donaldson perhaps?), that you hate reading about something yet respond to it, making assumptions and rounding it off with a gombeen putdown. The template for many a tedious response on this board.
If you are going to give off, at least put a bit of effort in.
Oh, and thanks for putting me right regarding Tarantino, can't believe I didn't see it all along. 

[easytiger95]

nteresting stuff Tiger, but can I ask, why would you want a Tarantino film to be 'like' the Dirty Dozen, or to 'stay true to itself' (whatever the f**k that means). Can you not just let it be a Tarantino film - for Christ sake it is all over pitched over exaggerated, comical when it should be serious, but is that not Tarantino?
And I am sorry I don't know my most 'satisfying' Tarantino film (wtf?!!) And pastiche? Is that not a kind of nut? 

BBB, I didn't say I wanted Basterds to be like the Dirty Dozen, I said the Dirty Dozen was the biggest influence on the film, and then drew a comparison between how Robert Aldrich made us care about the characters in that film, and how QT, failed to do so in Basterds, in my opinion.

As for letting a Tarantino film be a Tarantino film, one of my points was that themes like slavery and the holocaust deserve a more serious treatment than the typical QT movie, in my opinion.

As for you not knowing your most satisfying QT film (WTF??!!), I do, and it's Jackie Brown , in my opinion.

And a pastiche is a nut, and very tasty it is too, in my opinion.

So was my original post deserving of your reply? The clue is in italics.