criterionforum.org

What was Cusack thinking?

Jack Phillips wrote:Not so complete. Where's the entry for T-Rex's "Jeepster" in the DeathProof section?

Terrible reference list. His last three movies alone are worth a separate article.

movielocke wrote:To be fair, birdman is just the dresser with a bigger budget. I think he's right about the annual awards bait movies. So many are good or excellent but not lasting, I think.

Birdman wasn't "awards bait"--Selma, The Theory of Everything, yes, but Birdman was more in the same category as the reason Argo won:
Industry people will always vote for movies about the problems of the industry. (Producers voting for Picture thought Alan Arkin and John Goodman were the "stars" of Argo.)

As for Tarantino, in the documentary "Not Quite Hollywood" (a worthy rent about the history of Ozploitation), he tells the story of how he was trying to get Uma Thurman to play the coma scenes in Kill Bill with her eyes open--And when Uma complained that nobody sleeps in a coma with their eyes open, he responded, "But that's how they did it in 'Patrick'!"
That's what bugs me about Q, even more than the feet thing, the insistence on putting 70's Blaxploitation references into everything regardless of period, or the fact that any genre tribute he sets out to do will ultimately end up as a "Minority avenged!" story instead: He wants to know whether we've seen the same cool movies he's discovered, and...yes, Q. We HAVE.
I put him in the same category as Joe Dante and Peter Bogdanovich, for "Directors you would rather listen to talk about movies than watch them make their own."

flyonthewall2983 wrote:His wish-list cast for Pulp Fiction

Wonder if there is any truth to this since they aren't on the list?

To be fair, neither are Bruce Willis or Daniel Day-Lewis, although they both stumped hard for Vincent Vega.

Seems like an awfully optimistic list, with some unexpected possibilities (Denzel?).

Its funny to see that Rosanna Arquettes name doesn't appear at all on that list.

mfunk9786 wrote:What was Cusack thinking?

Was probably too busy working with Woody Allen, right?

Still no excuse for turning down Walter White.

EricJ wrote:As for Tarantino, in the documentary "Not Quite Hollywood" (a worthy rent about the history of Ozploitation), he tells the story of how he was trying to get Uma Thurman to play the coma scenes in Kill Bill with her eyes open--And when Uma complained that nobody sleeps in a coma with their eyes open, he responded, "But that's how they did it in 'Patrick'!"
That's what bugs me about Q, even more than the feet thing, the insistence on putting 70's Blaxploitation references into everything regardless of period, or the fact that any genre tribute he sets out to do will ultimately end up as a "Minority avenged!" story instead: He wants to know whether we've seen the same cool movies he's discovered, and...yes, Q. We HAVE.

Patrick isn't Blaxploitation. You're not making a very strong case that you've seen these cool movies he's discovered.

Raymond Marble wrote:

EricJ wrote:As for Tarantino, in the documentary "Not Quite Hollywood" (a worthy rent about the history of Ozploitation), he tells the story of how he was trying to get Uma Thurman to play the coma scenes in Kill Bill with her eyes open--And when Uma complained that nobody sleeps in a coma with their eyes open, he responded, "But that's how they did it in 'Patrick'!"
That's what bugs me about Q, even more than the feet thing, the insistence on putting 70's Blaxploitation references into everything regardless of period, or the fact that any genre tribute he sets out to do will ultimately end up as a "Minority avenged!" story instead: He wants to know whether we've seen the same cool movies he's discovered, and...yes, Q. We HAVE.

Patrick isn't Blaxploitation. You're not making a very strong case that you've seen these cool movies he's discovered.

Er, he quoted Patrick in a documentary on Oz-ploitation, a field he also has ex-video-clerk geekery-interest in. ("You know you're not in Australia until you're tormented by a sadistic biker gang!") Reading Is Fundamental.

My "Blaxploitation" reference was in re why the heck it turned up in 40's wartime in Inglorious Basterds, along with David Bowie's "Cat People" theme.
And I haven't seen Django, so I don't know how much they cleared the dance floor for him on that one.

EricJ wrote:

Raymond Marble wrote:Patrick isn't Blaxploitation. You're not making a very strong case that you've seen these cool movies he's discovered.

Er, he quoted Patrick in a documentary on Oz-ploitation, a field he also has ex-video-clerk geekery-interest in. ("You know you're not in Australia until you're tormented by a sadistic biker gang!") Reading Is Fundamental.

My "Blaxploitation" reference was in re why the heck it turned up in 40's wartime in Inglorious Basterds, along with David Bowie's "Cat People" theme.
And I haven't seen Django, so I don't know how much they cleared the dance floor for him on that one.

Don't do this, please. I just read through what you posted and it was not clear that you were changing the topic to another of Tarantino's perceived flaws. Take the opportunity to restate your position so that your message is clearer, which you've done, but don't take cheap potshots at other users for your own flaws.

EricJ wrote:

Raymond Marble wrote:

EricJ wrote:As for Tarantino, in the documentary "Not Quite Hollywood" (a worthy rent about the history of Ozploitation), he tells the story of how he was trying to get Uma Thurman to play the coma scenes in Kill Bill with her eyes open--And when Uma complained that nobody sleeps in a coma with their eyes open, he responded, "But that's how they did it in 'Patrick'!"
That's what bugs me about Q, even more than the feet thing, the insistence on putting 70's Blaxploitation references into everything regardless of period, or the fact that any genre tribute he sets out to do will ultimately end up as a "Minority avenged!" story instead: He wants to know whether we've seen the same cool movies he's discovered, and...yes, Q. We HAVE.

Patrick isn't Blaxploitation. You're not making a very strong case that you've seen these cool movies he's discovered.

Er, he quoted Patrick in a documentary on Oz-ploitation, a field he also has ex-video-clerk geekery-interest in. ("You know you're not in Australia until you're tormented by a sadistic biker gang!") Reading Is Fundamental.

My "Blaxploitation" reference was in re why the heck it turned up in 40's wartime in Inglorious Basterds, along with David Bowie's "Cat People" theme.
And I haven't seen Django, so I don't know how much they cleared the dance floor for him on that one.

The original IB was a blaxsploitation film so any connection to that genre makes a lot of sense given the source material.

knives wrote:The original IB was a blaxsploitation film so any connection to that genre makes a lot of sense given the source material.

That's not strictly true. The original Inglorious Bastards was an Italian Dirty Dozen rip-off that happened to have Fred Williamson in it, echoing the the casting of Jim Brown in The Dirty Dozen. It really is a big stretch to call Inglorious Bastards a blaxploitation film, Fred Williamson was in lots of Italian exploitation films of the period, are we calling all of them Blaxploitation too?

No, but IB is generally labeled in the genre given the shift in focus towards him. Anyways I don't even recall any references to blaxsploitation in Tarantino's film which was consistent on the Jew focus even with the one black character.

knives wrote:No, but IB is generally labeled in the genre given the shift in focus towards him. Anyways I don't even recall any references to blaxsploitation in Tarantino's film which was consistent on the Jew focus even with the one black character.

Who is labeling it a blaxploitation movie exactly? You are the fist person I've ever heard make that claim.

The film was re-edited to cash in on the blaxploitation craze and was originally called GI Bro in America. A Source: http://www.avclub.com/article/emthe-ing ... dsem-32182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

knives wrote:The film was re-edited to cash in on the blaxploitation craze and was originally called GI Bro in America. A Source: http://www.avclub.com/article/emthe-ing ... dsem-32182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In all honesty, knives, do you think this makes it a blaxploitation film?

Perhaps my memory fails me, but what in QT's IB adheres strictly to blaxploitation themes that make it seem inappropriate to the film?

This is ridiculous. The original IB never was and never will be a blaxploitation movie.

Mr Sausage wrote:

knives wrote:The film was re-edited to cash in on the blaxploitation craze and was originally called GI Bro in America. A Source: http://www.avclub.com/article/emthe-ing ... dsem-32182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In all honesty, knives, do you think this makes it a blaxploitation film?

Considering blaxploitation is primarily a marketing hook yes, but all of this is ignoring my point that Tarantino's IB doesn't have any out of place references to the genre. The reference to the original was merely a side support.

I kind of agree with you both. I'm not sure the original Inglourious Bastards was a blaxsploitation film, but in its multi-racial gang of mercenaries breaking out of a military prison it is kind of in the tradition of that strange offshoot of women in prison films, stuff like the Pam Grier starring The Big Bird Cage or Savage Sisters (aka Ebony, Ivory and Jade)

But of course we should not underestimate the influence that The Dirty Dozen (maybe mixed with a little of The Great Escape and The Guns of Navarone!) had over the original Inglourious Bastards as well. A mash up of all that is probably where the structure came from.

knives wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:

knives wrote:The film was re-edited to cash in on the blaxploitation craze and was originally called GI Bro in America. A Source: http://www.avclub.com/article/emthe-ing ... dsem-32182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In all honesty, knives, do you think this makes it a blaxploitation film?

Considering blaxploitation is primarily a marketing hook yes, but all of this is ignoring my point that Tarantino's IB doesn't have any out of place references to the genre. The reference to the original was merely a side support.

Your reasoning is incoherent. You also seem oblivious to something: that the American company was plainly trying to fool people into thinking they were watching a blaxploitation movie. That alone would mean it's not blaxploitation--otherwise no changes would've been necessary.

Inglorious Bastards is not generally thought of as a blaxploitation movie.

QT said some asinine things on Bret Easton Ellis' podcast. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to being infected by BEE's inherent douchiness.

Man, I haven't read the Playlist in a couple years but they've really gotten whiny and defensive, haven't they? Way more cringe-inducing than the actual QT comments

I kind of speed-read their articles. Quite apparent here, because it wasn't for the podcast but The New York Times.

On Christmas Day at The New Beverly in L.A. they're screening Tarantino's own 35mm print of Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair. How often has that even screened, anyway? I saw Kill Bill Integrale at Cannes 2004, but it's my understanding that Whole Bloody is slightly different from that. (Note that Wikipedia's entry on Kill Bill seems to be fairly confused on this issue.)