GRINDHOUSE In Fangoria
The new issue of Fangoria magazine has a GRINHOUSE feature in it. Thanks to Matt for the heads up in the comments.
| Print article | This entry was posted by schlyer on March 23, 2007 at 9:07 pm, and is filed under Death Proof. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 4 years ago
Yeah, as soon as I read about that early this morning, I went out and bought it, along with the Creative Screenwriting magazine. Both of them kind of repeat the same stuff, but all the same, I’m looking forward to it!
To anyone else who bought the CS mag–is it just me, or does it seem like they were kind of raggin’ on Tarantino’s career moves at the beginning of the article?
about 4 years ago
Corry?
about 4 years ago
Raggin’ on Tarantino is the Pretentious Film Fag’s new hobby. He’s doing fun action movies now instead of super hip crime films, and pretentious film buffs don’t allow themselves to enjoy anything fun or action packed.
about 4 years ago
Gilbert, you hit it PERFECTLY. Thank you!!
about 4 years ago
What people ignore is that for the first sixty years of cinema, nearly every great film was an action movie. Cinema was more or less invented just for action. Anything else you can do better in a play or in a novel or with music or etc. Action movies are the only reason film absolutely needs to exist. It’s just that there’s no pseudo-intellectual wankery going on when you watch an action movie. You know that you don’t understand the movie any better than the guy sitting next to you, and that bugs narcissistic film critics. If they’d read their film history, they’d know that Charlie Chaplin had more talent than Fellini.
Well to hell with those guys, they’re just a bunch of egomaniacal intellectual masturbators trying to out-wank the other circle jerkers. Movies aren’t here to make you feel like you’re more clever than the next asshole down the line, they’re here to tell stories with sight and sound.
about 4 years ago
I take back everything I said. I realized I don’t know what I’m talking about. I will now watch The Fast and the Furious for the 100th time.
about 4 years ago
I think its funny when people complain about how Tarantino isnt making important statements with his movies anymore. Thats the type of pretentious snobby BS that pisses me off.
Sorry but I still dont know what important statements he made with Dogs, Pulp or Jackie. They were pop art crime films werent they? What was the big message in Pulp? Dont get caught by hillbilly rapists in a pawn shop? I dont fuckin know.
I just want to see well told, enrtertaining genre films. Im not expecting some message or some super serious statement every time out.
about 4 years ago
I probably don’t need to tell you all that the last Gilbert Smith comment wasn’t me.
The Fast and the Furious has no grace or competence of design, it’s just fast paced driving. You can achieve that with the fast forward button. There is such thing as a bad action movie.
about 4 years ago
Pulp Fiction ends with Jules quitting the hitman business and finding redemption. Kill Bill ends with The Bride quitting the hitman business and finding redemption. People dis Kill Bill because it’s so wildly entertaining. As if being fun somehow negates being good? The best movies aren’t one or the other, the best movies are both at the same time.
about 4 years ago
Good films have an emotional core, and good writing and directing can anchor emotion to any genre. We will soon see if Quentin can continue to achieve this. He hasn’t failed yet… Well in the hands of Robert Rodriguez From Dusk Till Dawn lost it completly.
about 4 years ago
I think FDTD is excellent. Its one of my fave RR films too.
FDTD was supposed to be a crazy crime meets vampire film. What else do you want from it?
about 4 years ago
Definitely emotionally involving too. Just because there’s crazy vampires, doesn’t mean there’s NOT that scene where Harvey Keitel makes his kids promise to kill him.
about 4 years ago
But in the hands of Quentin as Director. The scene would have had more resonance. All the cheesy acting in the third act and bad creature design drained that scene of meaning. I thought the best scene in the film was the opening. When I first saw that I thought I was in for a something special. Like I said before it doesn’t matter if the film has a crazy premise, a film works better with a real emotional reality. I felt that it was lost in Act 3.
about 4 years ago
Of course it probably wouldve been a bit different if QT had done it. I think its a fun movie, Its really rewatchable too. I dont really have any problems with it. I just look at it as a crazy genre mixer with over the top action and gore and lots of funny sharp dialogue!
about 4 years ago
The third act was meant as a treat for fans of corny old monster movies, just as Kill Bill is meant for fans of Kung Fu flicks and Spaghetti Westerns. I don’t know that QT would’ve changed much.
about 4 years ago
QT wouldve shot it differently Im sure. But he wouldnt have change the lines of course.
about 4 years ago
There should be a forum on this site. Seems like you guys know whats up.
about 4 years ago
“The third act was meant as a treat for fans of corny old monster movies,”
Sure, except that when the movie was being made, Tarantino never described it EVER as being for fans of corny old monster movies, he described it as balls to the wall horror.
Which it wasn’t, under the direction of Robert Rodriguez.
about 4 years ago
today is Tarantino’s Birthday.
about 4 years ago
O.K. Here it gos I think the resune
QT shot it in a difront way was to be like B-Movies Action and the gialli also from the name of Speghetti Slasher like Dario Argento and Lucio Fulcio and so on.
all so both geners are like Lighted like Bright.. and Both geners are like from the 70s QT’s faverat time for movies. also Both geners are slow and take time. not like Flach and Time is Fast like today new and inpovied movies.
also Movies are not jest a action pack thing. If that was the case are movies would be repase with video Games ……………..