Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 04, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
Gooch.
Bertie Ahern
One of the Jedwardseses
Genius is a word bandied about recklessly. Over talented in a set area or field would be more a better description.
Maradonna, Salvadore Dali, Graucho Marx, Matt Groening, Garry Kasparov,Mohammed Ali, Stephen King, Matt Connor.
Quote from: From the Bunker on January 04, 2014, 10:33:23 AM
Genius is a word bandied about recklessly. Over talented in a set area or field would be more a better description.
Maradonna, Salvadore Dali, Graucho Marx, Matt Groening, Garry Kasparov,Mohammed Ali, Stephen King, Matt Connor.
Huh? What about Ciaran Mac?? ;D
I think geniuses can be either good or bad and sometimes a mixture of both.
That's a matter of perspective, I suppose.
Both Haughey and Ahern were geniuses in my book and each left a very mixed legacy behind them. Hitler had to be a genius too but there was feck all good in his makeup.
Pity the frigger didn't stick to house painting.
After watching Django unchained ,I swore I will never watch another Q.T movie.Brutal movie.Genius my a*se
Agreed. Tarantino made one excellent movie (Reservoir Dogs)and one very good movie (Pulp Fiction). Not much in the way of quality since, though they're sometimes entertaining enough.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 04, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
Great show.. Especially sam l jacksons butler and his 'lequint dicky' monolog
Fresh out of genii at the moment. If there are any about they re probably in computer science or medical research no great individual inventors about its mostly companies doing research not many big names eg einstien.
If I had to pick.. I'd say ennio marroconi composer
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 04, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
I give you Dusk til Dawn
Quote from: NAG1 on January 06, 2014, 09:01:53 AM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 04, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
I give you Dusk til Dawn
Every director is allowed to have a turkey!
I'd say Cody, Shefflin and Christy Moore will all become part of Irish folklore. Probably Keano and Big Jack too. The gooch and Dylan Moran deserve to be remembered forever as well.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 06, 2014, 03:30:31 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on January 06, 2014, 09:01:53 AM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 04, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
I give you Dusk til Dawn
Every director is allowed to have a turkey!
It was directed by Robert Rodriguez. Tarantino wrote the screenplay.
Tarantino movies always suffer the same problems (apart from reservoir dogs); lots of great scenes that don't really tie together and always feel as if they are 30 mins too long.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 06, 2014, 04:08:45 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 06, 2014, 03:30:31 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on January 06, 2014, 09:01:53 AM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 04, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Just finished watching Django Unchained - surely Tarantino has to be hailed as a genius director?
He has to be up there with the greats.
So, to kick this off, who are the people out there, living now, who will be known in 100 years time (Larry Reilly excluded)?
I give you Dusk til Dawn
Every director is allowed to have a turkey!
It was directed by Robert Rodriguez. Tarantino wrote the screenplay.
Tarantino movies always suffer the same problems (apart from reservoir dogs); lots of great scenes that don't really tie together and always feel as if they are 30 mins too long.
I like Django (the D is silent) Unchained purely for entertainment, I'm sure there's loads of errors and all that, but its worth the watch even if there are strange scenes littered through it.
Tarantino in not a legend, but he's pretty good IMO.
Reservoir Dogs was refreshing to say the least when released first. Excellent first film which was never matched imo.
Cannot for the life of me see why everyone raves about Pulp Fiction....... just don't rate it at all.
First hour or so of Django Unchained was excellent, it faded badly after that but still a good film imvho and his best since RDs.
Having said that his films are interesting if nothing else. Music in them usually very good if somewhat odd at times.
Mad as a blue weasel.
No internal logic to his films at all - everyone who says he is paying homage to grindhouse films etc fails to notice that these B movies though cheap and full of gimmicks still had a semblance of narrative coherence. the thing was after Pulp Fiction (which I loved) where he played with the timeline to great effect, he then thought he could do that and more in each film - hence the garish unreality of Kill bill, the killing of Hitler in "inglorious Basterds", the ridiculous escape and shoot out at the end of Django Unchained. Imagine the film "Basterds" could have been if he had played it straight instead of going for cheap laughs all the time? It's most obvious influence is "The Dirty Dozen", which is hilarious for the first hour, until it gets deadly serious in the second half - so when they start getting knocked off, it actually packs a punch. QT has lost the knack of making us care for his characters - remember how stange and disconcerting it was to see Vincent Vega killed halfway through Pulp?
In fact check out "Django" with Franco Nero - yes, it may be kitschy now, but in its own time and on its own merit, it is a brilliant spaghetti Western - and there is no one mugging for the camera, no arched eyebrows, no meta references - it stays true to itself. Whereas "Django Unchained" is a modern film pretending to be a spaghetti Western, whilst fetishing the slave trade. It is a film about the 1970s, rather than the 1860s. I don't like to be po faced, but I think the theme of slavery should be more than a convenient prop for a postmodern buddy movie pastiche.
For all the talk of his script writing "dialogue" skills, he can only write "set pieces" instead of scenes - everything always leads to a payoff, which makes you sick or makes you laugh, or both. He doesn't write dialogues anymore like the "Big Mac/Amsterdam" scene in Pulp Fiction. He writes monologues for a series of characters/ciphers who are all QT by proxy.
His most emotionally affecting and heart felt work was the script he wrote for "True Romance" and didn't direct himself - and of his own efforts as a director, I think his most coherent and satisfying film is "Jackie Brown" - and that was based on Elmore Leonard's "Rum Punch."
It is the law of diminishing returns - he became worshipped so early in his career and he has never heard the word "no" - so now it is a spiral of self indulgence. He says that he re-imagines history - I think it is perilously close to an insult of history. I'd be on Spike Lee's side when it comes to QT, but with a touch of regret at such talent being wasted.
Or, to put it another way ... mad as a blue weasel.
;)
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 06, 2014, 08:08:46 PMhe became worshipped so early in his career and he has never heard the word "no" - so now it is a spiral of self indulgence.
Seriously, though, this is exactly what I think too. I said something like it here one time.
Same thing happened Jesus.
Bollix. Jesus didn't leave home until He was 30.
The smiths.. Morris and marr genii together. Seminal band fantastic sound. Still sounds great after 20 years.
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 06, 2014, 08:08:46 PM
No internal logic to his films at all - everyone who says he is paying homage to grindhouse films etc fails to notice that these B movies though cheap and full of gimmicks still had a semblance of narrative coherence. the thing was after Pulp Fiction (which I loved) where he played with the timeline to great effect, he then thought he could do that and more in each film - hence the garish unreality of Kill bill, the killing of Hitler in "inglorious Basterds", the ridiculous escape and shoot out at the end of Django Unchained. Imagine the film "Basterds" could have been if he had played it straight instead of going for cheap laughs all the time? It's most obvious influence is "The Dirty Dozen", which is hilarious for the first hour, until it gets deadly serious in the second half - so when they start getting knocked off, it actually packs a punch. QT has lost the knack of making us care for his characters - remember how stange and disconcerting it was to see Vincent Vega killed halfway through Pulp?
In fact check out "Django" with Franco Nero - yes, it may be kitschy now, but in its own time and on its own merit, it is a brilliant spaghetti Western - and there is no one mugging for the camera, no arched eyebrows, no meta references - it stays true to itself. Whereas "Django Unchained" is a modern film pretending to be a spaghetti Western, whilst fetishing the slave trade. It is a film about the 1970s, rather than the 1860s. I don't like to be po faced, but I think the theme of slavery should be more than a convenient prop for a postmodern buddy movie pastiche.
For all the talk of his script writing "dialogue" skills, he can only write "set pieces" instead of scenes - everything always leads to a payoff, which makes you sick or makes you laugh, or both. He doesn't write dialogues anymore like the "Big Mac/Amsterdam" scene in Pulp Fiction. He writes monologues for a series of characters/ciphers who are all QT by proxy.
His most emotionally affecting and heart felt work was the script he wrote for "True Romance" and didn't direct himself - and of his own efforts as a director, I think his most coherent and satisfying film is "Jackie Brown" - and that was based on Elmore Leonard's "Rum Punch."
It is the law of diminishing returns - he became worshipped so early in his career and he has never heard the word "no" - so now it is a spiral of self indulgence. He says that he re-imagines history - I think it is perilously close to an insult of history. I'd be on Spike Lee's side when it comes to QT, but with a touch of regret at such talent being wasted.
Interesting 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? ;)
You on the whiskey again?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 06, 2014, 11:21:11 PM
You on the whiskey again?
No, rather worringly sober and concerned that I am caught in some post modern buffoonery!
Quote from: lawnseed on January 06, 2014, 11:17:09 PM
The smiths.. Morris and marr genii together. Seminal band fantastic sound. Still sounds great after 20 years.
Good Call
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on January 06, 2014, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 06, 2014, 11:21:11 PM
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!!!
Im in the mood now for a hot one. And maybe a cornish pastish.. :D
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
In the cinematic world, the only one that comes close to genius is Stanley Kubrick. No one else.
Quote from: thejuice on January 06, 2014, 11:47:07 PM
In the cinematic world, the only one that comes close to genius is Stanley Kubrick. No one else.
Eyes wide shut? Emmm?
Gerry lewis.. Comic. writer. director. producer. inventor. actor. Sound engineer.. Genius
That explains a lot of stuff in retrospect.
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:59:53 AM
That explains a lot of stuff in retrospect.
Thanks. Made my day! ;)
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.
Quote from: trileacman on January 07, 2014, 07:00:55 PM
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.
Quote from: ONeill on January 06, 2014, 09:43:04 PM
Same thing happened Jesus.
very similar
http://vimeo.com/59975315
David Blaine.
Quote from: trileacman on January 07, 2014, 07:00:55 PM
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. ;)
Quotenteresting 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, i
n 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.
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 09, 2014, 01:32:27 PM
Quotenteresting 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.
Good Points Well Made ET, stating your own stance - your original post read a bit like a lecture so was it deserving of my reply?
Yes,
In my opinion ;D
Good stuff BBB ;)
Burt Bacharach and Hal David. Sin é.
Shane é.
:) Hardy
Enya
The Waterboys
Mr Bic (The pen guy); opps not in our time
Mr Bill Gates
My Dad
Mr Joe Brolly
Mr Michael O'Leary