The Outsider Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! ^ Top post Straight Drive aka Don. Pulp Fiction rulez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Sholay of the west. What direction and dialogues. Jackson is God. Not sure if Pulp Fiction is Sholay of the West but it surely is an all-time classic. Generally movies often lose their shine after a few years, or decades in this case However one can watch Pulp Fiction anytime anywhere. Superb story telling, stellar starcast and lovely acting. An oft forgotten aspect about Pulp Fiction is its music. Maybe because the movie is such a cult classic it sort of put everything else in its shadow. Dusty Sprinfield's "Son of a Preacher Man" is an all-time classic but my favorite is Neil Diamond's, "Girl..you would be a woman soon". Has there been a better song in Hollywood movie? Some would come close - "What a Feeling" (Flashdance), "I had the time of my Life"(Dirty Dancing) , "Unchained Melody"(Ghost) or "Danger Zone"(Top Gun) or "You've Lost that Lovely Feeling"(Top Gun) but in my opinion "Girl...you would be a woman soon" beats them all. Good movie and great music. :wtg: xxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain of Bhangra Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! You inspired me to pull out my DVD and watch it last night with the Trivia track on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 28, 2007 Author Share Posted April 28, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Lol! I m glad. My phones been themed to Pulp Fiction incidentally. Message tone on the dialouge "Loud Gun shot!! Oh did i break you concentration" , Ringtone on the song at start. and wallpaper on Samuel Jackson and Vince posing with guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feverpitch Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Don, FIrst read what I wrote: Tarantino knows that his audience [mostly immature kewl doods] search for some identity makes them extremely touchy about their beliefs. Now about your post: Excuse me enough with this morality brigade ****. Morality is not about dragging a Bollywood coquette to court for kissing in public. It is about belief systems that one adheres to. My suggestion was that QT is immoral in knowingly playing to the audience, in the name of po-mo hedonism. He has admitted to that several times in interviews, and it shows in his films for anyone who realizes its import. What cool dude and trendyness Wannabees are u talking about. YOU! We watch movies for entertainment and and this is as good a entertainment u can get. Entertainment can mean a lot of things to lot of people, and to the same person at different phases of his/her life. Can you define the parameters for "entertainment" in your lexicon? No doubt there is a big satisfaction gained, in discovering in a film, for the first time, any semblance of intelligence. I understand the reason behind your strong feelings, and do not intend to belittle them. All I'm saying is that just as you have taken a first baby step out of mindless Holly/Bolly blockbusters by keeping your mind open, you should not close it down after this with the satisfaction of having gained nirvana. Then only, maybe, someday, you will realize that all films ? heck, all narratives, are 'constructed', but very few reveal to the audience their 'constructedness' ? which I think is ethical, therefore moral. On the other hand, most films, incl QT's, try to show-off the 'cleverness' of the director through visual pyrotechniques. Just my opinion. I watched this film because it was ranked in the TOP 5 of Imdb top 250 list. Not because anyone told me to watch it nor because it would be cool to watch it. I never said someone physically recommended it to you. Even IMDB functions in the same way as your peer group would have functioned. Their ratings system is a reflection of activity of a somewhat similar set of people anyway. And after watching it for fun the first time i watched it critically for the second time after which i realised how good this film really was. Good. This is a very important beginning. Don't stop now, or ever, in trying to view films, TV or anything else uncritically. You will realize, as you no boubt have in this case, that there is 'entertainment' to be gained out of critical reflection too! Yes its got some swear words and violence but in no way is it gory or angelled towards blood and violence only. No problems. If you want I can recommend you films that have far more swear words and infinitely more gruesome graphic violence than anything Tarantino can ever dream of making. Proves what? This movie is about story, circumstancial humour and above all dialougue and dialouge delivery. All done in astute direction. It is rated in Top 5 for a reason. And if you cant understand it then ur a fuc**ing stupid guy! I know I am stupid. Why else would I try arguing/preaching with a neo-convert and neo-phyte like you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator_05 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! For some reason, films that make no sense whatsoever become cult classics for all the wrong reasons. The Big Lebowski is another example of some crappy film about nothing making it big (it also has an 8.5 something rating on IMDB). For some reason, no one has ever been able to give me a straight answer as to why they actually like films like these. I usually get answers bordering on stupidity, ie; "It was a classic film, that's why", "It just looks so cool", etc. I didn't quite figure out the humour and dialogue delivery involved in the scene where Uma Thurman snorts coke and then gets nabbed by some junkie ? or when Samuel L eats the Big Kahuna burger. Did these scenes make sense to you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zap_Brannigan Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! most overhyped movie.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varun Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! I can see where the critics are coming from. For example, when i watch most of the Kevin Smith movies, almost all the works of John Cleese, and other similar humor that I just can't stop laughing at, some of my friends find it absolutely absurd that I am even giggling let alone laughing my a.ss off. And I find it ridiculous that they don't find it funny. Like humor, what someone finds entertaining is also subjective and is dependent on the person's upbringing and major influences in their life. So to deride somebody saying that he is "faking it" just because that person likes something that you don't is naive at best and idiotic at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain of Bhangra Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Agreed Varun. I like Pulp fiction, no, I love it. There's scenes that are acted so cool when they do stuff that would sh*t normal people up. I'm not pretentious, I'm not going to chat bollox about arty-farty cinematography etc. I just happen to like some of the lines they come out with, and some of the funny sh*t they do... There are lots of films I like, that critics/general public think are cr@p, and also some films that really took off where I thought "Are people f'kin serious, that's sh*t". If someone likes something, that's up to them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Don, FIrst read what I wrote: Tarantino knows that his audience [mostly immature kewl doods] search for some identity makes them extremely touchy about their beliefs. Now about your post: Excuse me enough with this morality brigade ****. Morality is not about dragging a Bollywood coquette to court for kissing in public. It is about belief systems that one adheres to. My suggestion was that QT is immoral in knowingly playing to the audience, in the name of po-mo hedonism. He has admitted to that several times in interviews, and it shows in his films for anyone who realizes its import. What cool dude and trendyness Wannabees are u talking about. YOU! We watch movies for entertainment and and this is as good a entertainment u can get. Entertainment can mean a lot of things to lot of people, and to the same person at different phases of his/her life. Can you define the parameters for "entertainment" in your lexicon? No doubt there is a big satisfaction gained, in discovering in a film, for the first time, any semblance of intelligence. I understand the reason behind your strong feelings, and do not intend to belittle them. All I'm saying is that just as you have taken a first baby step out of mindless Holly/Bolly blockbusters by keeping your mind open, you should not close it down after this with the satisfaction of having gained nirvana. Then only, maybe, someday, you will realize that all films ? heck, all narratives, are 'constructed', but very few reveal to the audience their 'constructedness' ? which I think is ethical, therefore moral. On the other hand, most films, incl QT's, try to show-off the 'cleverness' of the director through visual pyrotechniques. Just my opinion. I watched this film because it was ranked in the TOP 5 of Imdb top 250 list. Not because anyone told me to watch it nor because it would be cool to watch it. I never said someone physically recommended it to you. Even IMDB functions in the same way as your peer group would have functioned. Their ratings system is a reflection of activity of a somewhat similar set of people anyway. And after watching it for fun the first time i watched it critically for the second time after which i realised how good this film really was. Good. This is a very important beginning. Don't stop now, or ever, in trying to view films, TV or anything else uncritically. You will realize, as you no boubt have in this case, that there is 'entertainment' to be gained out of critical reflection too! Yes its got some swear words and violence but in no way is it gory or angelled towards blood and violence only. No problems. If you want I can recommend you films that have far more swear words and infinitely more gruesome graphic violence than anything Tarantino can ever dream of making. Proves what? This movie is about story, circumstancial humour and above all dialougue and dialouge delivery. All done in astute direction. It is rated in Top 5 for a reason. And if you cant understand it then ur a fuc**ing stupid guy! I know I am stupid. Why else would I try arguing/preaching with a neo-convert and neo-phyte like you! About your morality issue - I didnt know about those QT interviews therefore i didnt know where you immoral stance came from, now i do, forgive my ignorance. I dont, however, agree that its immoral, he's making a motion picture, He's fully entitled to use any method way or system he likes to make it a intresting/entertaining film. As its just a film i do not consider that immoral. You accusing me of a wannabee - Right lemme get this straight jus because i like this film ur gonna stereotype me to a certain category of people. The mere thought amuses me. Entertainment - Totally agree with you. It can mean a lot of things to lot of people. My parameters for entertainment is enjoyment/pleasure/fascination/awe/inspiration (not necessarily in that order nor all of them from same thing) out of that certain object for reasonable amount of time. Gaining Nirvana - Surprisingly you hit the fucking jackpot there. I'm all of 19 years old and it is first time im getting to watch film to quote you with "some semblence of intelligence" and i m gaining much pleasure out of that. And yes i sure as hell know its not the nirvana and know better not to close my mind to other things. Constructedness of a film. - Incidentally i did know that there is a constructiveness in every film but just the way Pulp fiction showed it blew me away, It was unlike anything i had ever seen. I fully reserve my right to wholly enjoy that fact. Peer group recommendation - I fully disagree with you that Imdb works to a similar set of individuals. To date , 200000+ people have voted it to 8.8/10 i cannot for the life of me vision those all 200000+ people are similar set of individuals and possess a similar set of intelligence/way of thinking that you argue for. Violence and Tarantino - I know not what you are arguing for there, i never said i wanted violence/gruesomeness. All i said was that this film wasnt about violence but more about other things. Neo-phyte - yes i am one. So what! Every one was at some point in time. The stupid comment wasnt directed towards you, its plain to realise you are anything but. Some of the stuff i said in the first comment was also directed towards posters above you who said shit without backing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! "We should have Fcuking shot guns for this" "Cooties i can handle" "Just stab her in the heart and push the plunger?" "Yeah!" "what happens then?" "I am curious about that too." "Royale with cheese" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feverpitch Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! My parameters for entertainment is enjoyment/ pleasure/ fascination/ awe/ inspiration (not necessarily in that order nor all of them from same thing) out of that certain object for reasonable amount of time. Could you be a bit more specific. Like, what in your opinion constitutes "enjoyment", "pleasure", "fascination", "awe" and "inspiration"? Peer group recommendation - I fully disagree with you that Imdb works to a similar set of individuals. To date , 200000+ people have voted it to 8.8/10 i cannot for the life of me vision those all 200000+ people are similar set of individuals and possess a similar set of intelligence/way of thinking that you argue for. Ask the same set of people whether they have seen any film outside their national cinema and Hollywood, and you will get the drift... ... Neo-phyte - yes i am one. So what! Every one was at some point in time. True... ... and its a great feeling. Keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holysmoke Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! how many of u liked "Snatch" :hic: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feverpitch Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2069286,00.html For your entertainment Mainstream movies are getting darker and more violent. And as Quentin Tarantino's latest project, Grindhouse, demonstrates, the worst of the violence is often directed at women. Kira Cochrane on the rise of 'torture porn' Tuesday May 1, 2007 The Guardian Talking about his upcoming film Hostel II at a press junket recently, the young director Eli Roth couldn't contain his enthusiasm for the poster devised by the film's marketing team - a close-up of some sinewy, gleaming boar meat. "Any time people see women in a horror film," he noted, "they say, 'Oh, these girls are just pieces of meat.' And, literally, in Hostel Part II, that's exactly what they are. They are the bait, they are the meat, they are the grist for the mill. So I thought it was actually a really smart poster ... and really, really disgusting! I love it." Unless you have a taste for seriously gory films, chances are you haven't heard of Roth. Last year, though, the first instalment of Hostel - the story of a Slovakian boarding house where rich men pay to enact tortures on unwitting victims - was a massive hit, topping the US box office on its opening weekend. The trailer promised that, "There is a place where your darkest, sickest fantasies are possible, where you can experience anything you desire," and the film strove to live up to that promise. Hostel's most famous scene shows a man taking a blowtorch to a woman's face, her eyeball coming out and dangling from the socket. Later, another character snips it off with some scissors. Horror films have, of course, always been full of nasty, misanthropic imagery. In many other films, extreme, sexualised violence against women has frequently been a theme (Clockwork Orange, Boxing Helena and many others spring to mind). But recently the levels of horrific violence on show at the multiplexes - and the sheer cynicism of the films involved - have gone through the roof. And a lot of the most nasty, unrepentant and terrifyingly pointless violence is aimed at women. At least Clockwork Orange had a political point to make. (There can be no excuses for Boxing Helena.) Hostel is just part of a new subgenre of horror films which are so dehumanising, nasty and misogynist that they are collectively known either as "gorno" (a conflation of "gory" and "porno"), or, more commonly, as "torture porn". Other films that make it into the torture porn category are Wolf Creek, Turistas and The Devil's Rejects, with each new film promising higher levels of violence - guaranteeing not just a considerable body count, but long, lingering scenes of terror, torture and pain. In most of these films, both men and women end up being sliced, gored, dismembered, decapitated. In that sense they offer audiences equal-opportunity gore. But it's the violence against women that's most troubling, because it is here that sex and extreme violence collide. The publicity campaigns for many of these films flag up the prospect of watching a nubile young woman being tortured as a genuinely pleasurable experience. So, for instance, a recent US billboard campaign for the upcoming (mainstream) film Captivity featured the film's star Elisha Cuthbert (just voted the 10th sexiest woman in the world by the young male readers of FHM magazine) in a series of four photographs. In the first (labelled ABDUCTION) a black-gloved hand covers her mouth. The second (CONFINEMENT) shows her, with bloody fingers, struggling to get out of a cage. The third (TORTURE) has her face encased in an odd white mask, tubes shoved up her nose, and apparently filled with blood. Finally, under the word TERMINATION, she is shown laid out, apparently dead. The billboard attracted a barrage of complaints, with Jill Soloway (one of the writers of Six Feet Under) leading a campaign against it - the poster was soon taken down. In a piece on the Huffington Post website, Soloway wrote that the images were "the most repulsive, horrifying, woman-hating, human-hating thing I have ever seen in public" and didn't just represent "horror, this wasn't just misogyny ... It was a grody combo platter of the two, the torture almost a punishment for the sexiness. It had come from such a despicable inhuman hatred place that it somehow managed to recall Abu Ghraib, the Holocaust, porn and snuff films all at once." Joss Whedon, creator of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series, agreed, writing in a letter to the MPAA, the US ratings board, that the ad campaign "is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it's an assault ... this ad is part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have to see it. It's like being mugged." Many of today's torture porn films are being made on tiny budgets by little-known directors, but with the release of the new Tarantino/Rodriguez double-bill, Grindhouse - designed as a tribute to the ultra-violent B-movie programmes of old - the trend officially reaches the mainstream. Made up of two films plus a clutch of trailers for non-existent movies, Grindhouse bombed when it was released in the US last month. American audiences were said to have been put off by the three-hour running time, and last week it was announced that Grindhouse will be released in a different format in the UK, the two films sold as separate features. Whether either film is any good is still up for debate - I, for one, found them both suicidally boring. What isn't in question is the disturbing attitude towards women in these films. First on the programme is Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, a repetitively gory, gloomily depressing zombie picture, which opens with Rose McGowan pole dancing. There are close ups of her bottom and breasts in those initial scenes, and then she appears to be kissing another woman. In a feature about Grindhouse in Rolling Stone last month, Rodriguez noted that, "When we started talking about the movie, Quentin said, 'There should always be a lesbian kiss just around the corner - possibly.' I took that to heart, and in my very first scene, I have two female tongues going at each other and licking. You find out that it's Rose licking a mirror, but it gets across the idea that it could be around the corner at any time." So far, so predictable. It isn't surprising that the film's main female character is a go-go dancer - Rodriguez is, after all, the director who made Sin City, in which the female characters ran the gamut from prostitutes to strippers. But having established McGowan's sexiness, in Planet Terror, the attacks on her begin. First a zombie rips off McGowan's leg, and then Tarantino (playing a zombie soldier called Rapist Number One) holds a gun to her head, before threatening her with rape. You can currently buy a Rapist Number One action figure online for your kids, should you so wish. Then there's Tarantino's Death Proof, in which Kurt Russell stars as Stuntman Mike, a guy who gets his kicks from stalking groups of gorgeous young women, following them in his car and ramming whatever vehicle they happen to be travelling in, until they are dead. Severed limbs and bloodied faces abound. Interestingly, of all the women actors in Grindhouse, McGowan is the only one to appear in both films, and, while she survives Planet Terror (fitting the age-old horror archetype of the "final girl" who persists to the end - usually, it seems, to help justify the misogyny that has gone before) this triumph is short-lived. In Death Proof, McGowan's character is swiftly - gruesomely - dispatched. (In that same Rolling Stone feature, McGowan talked about her own attitude towards today's horror films, saying that, "all they do now is think about ways to torture women, primarily. I don't really get that. What is this, a manual for young, budding serial killers? Can't we just go watch Pillow Talk?") Some of the nastiest images in Grindhouse arise in the fake trailers. Rob Zombie, director of The Devil's Rejects, creates one for a dream project - Werewolf Women of the SS - which includes the image of a topless woman, bound and gagged, being tortured by cartoonish Nazi soldiers. And Eli Roth - him again! - packs a host of sex and gore into his three-minute trailer for a potential film called Thanksgiving, including an image of a cheerleader peeling off her clothes while bouncing on a trampoline, before apparently being impaled with a large, gleaming knife - through the vagina, no less. (Horrifying though this is, it isn't actually original - the 2005 film Chaos showed a woman being anally raped with a knife.) Unsurprisingly, the cheerleader scene in Grindhouse attracted some attention from the MPAA, the US ratings board, and Roth was forced to change it, to make the imagery much more suggestive than explicit. Addressing this at the American press junket for Grindhouse, he commented that "when I shot that trailer for Thanksgiving, I really thought there was no problem with anything - it just shows you how genuinely out of touch I am! I was like ... a full frontal labial shot, to camera, of a girl landing on a knife seemed like no problem to me ..." Of course, maybe Roth's just trying to be funny - his tone is gleeful throughout this interview (a transcript and audio version of which can be found on a number of film websites). Later in the interview he says: "Let me tell you, I heard that Stanley Kubrick did a lot of takes on Eyes Wide Shut, it was nothing compared to the amount of takes we did once we had that cheerleader naked and bouncing around on a trampoline! I mean, she was great, she got it on the first take, but we did take, after take, after take! And we finished early and we had like three hours, and we're like, 'Well, how much film do we have?' And we're like, 'All right, let's ... let's do it again!' And she just had a smile on her face the whole time." Grindhouse is, in many ways, a cartoon, and its intersection of sex and violence is meant to be ironic, funny even. It makes multiple nods to parody and pastiche. I'm not so sure that British audiences will share the directors' humour though. As one of the stars of Planet Terror, the British actor Naveen Andrews, has said on the subject of the B-movie films Grindhouse is based on: "Obviously, Quentin and Rodriguez saw some kind of aesthetic in these kinds of films, and for the life of me I was trying to grasp what it was. They were laughing like maniacs and I didn't find it funny for more than like a minute." Over the years, many directors have defended the violence in their films by claiming that it's ironic. But is an image of a nubile woman having her innards pulled out - as occurs in Planet Terror - any less problematic because it has been made in a knowing way? You could argue that it's more problematic. Irony - with its inherent insincerity - can be an emotionally deadening tool, and, in terms of their content, these films are already deadening, de-sensitising enough. The irony just adds another layer of soul-sucking cynicism to the mix. Watching Grindhouse, I felt fundamentally depressed: who would seek out this experience as entertainment? What is more depressing is the fact that such films seem to be part of a wider trend towards the mainstream depiction of women as highly sexualised bait and prey: meat, as Roth had it. Over the past year, for example, we've seen mainstream fashion images that have shown highly made up, designer-clad women being brutalised (Italian Vogue), apparently about to be gang raped (a Dolce and Gabbana ad), and shot, stabbed and electrocuted (America's Next Top Model). On shows such as CSI and its many spin-offs and imitators, the victims of each weekly murder case are, disproportionately, nubile young women. Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post came up with an apt shorthand for such series in 2005, dubbing that year's programmes the "season of Die, Women, Die!". Of course, watching one of these films won't turn a sane, decent individual into a killer or a torturer, but you have to wonder what effect this widespread meshing of sexuality and graphic violence will have on the young men at whom they are primarily aimed. The clear logic behind all these films, TV shows and images appears to be that if a young, good-looking, barely-clad woman is sexy while alive, she's even sexier when she's being tortured, or when she's a bloody corpse. In an article in Newsweek last year, Tony Timpone, editor of the horror magazine Fangoria, commented that "in 1990, I had to pull my hair out just to find a movie to put on the cover. There were only three or four major horror releases a year. Now there are three or four a month. We're like pigs in slop." That's not a bad way of putting it. Nasty and nastier Xan Brooks on the history of misogynist violence in film Blood Feast (1963) Blood Feast was the forefather of the exploitation genre, a strain of low-budget, cheap-thrill cinema that catered to America's burgeoning drive-in market and its attendant teenage demographic. Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis, this amateurish, ketchup-drenched affair offered viewers the chance to "witness the slaughter and mutilation of nubile young girls", culminating in a scene in which one victim is pinned to a bed while her tongue is torn loose. Where previous horror films had run shy of graphic gore, Blood Feast laid it on with a trowel. The Last House on the Left (1972) Ingmar Bergman's Oscar-winning drama The Virgin Spring was the unlikely inspiration for this bloody tale of two good-time girls who are raped and murdered while on a jaunt through the backwoods. Creator Wes Craven hastened to explain that the sadistic violence was an artistic response to the war in Vietnam, although this cut little ice with the UK censors, who effectively banned the film until 2003. In the meantime, Last House proved hugely influential, kick-starting a run of women-in-peril slasher movies that stretched throughout the 1970s. Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS (1974) Rob Zombie's spoof trailer for "Werewolf Women of the SS" (in Grindhouse) has a real-life ancestor in Ilsa. She's the jodhpurwearing, cleavage-baring nymphomaniac Nazi who plies her trade as the mistress of a concentration camp-cum-knocking shop (her mission: to prove that women can withstand more pain than men). Don Edmonds' dubious cult offering was shot on the cheap on the discarded set of the TV show Hogan's Heroes, with the extras billed as "Big Busted Prisoners". In a touching display of cultural sensitivity, he went on to dedicate the film to all "victims of the Holocaust". I Spit on Your Grave (1978) This sleazy B-movie outing gained a new lease of life when it was singled out as the archetypal "video nasty" in the early 1980s. It starred Camille Keaton (grand-niece of Buster) as a career woman who becomes an angel of vengeance after she is assaulted by a bunch of brutish yokels. The notorious video sleeve (bloodstained rump, clenched dagger) looks like an X-rated version of that iconic Athena poster of a tennis player scratching her bum. Baise-moi (2000) Baise-moi was a rape'n'revenge saga that attempted to have its cake and eat it; a hardcore Thelma and Louise that dispatched a pair of ass-kicking porn starlets on a mission of reprisal. The fact that the film was French gave it the veneer of art-house class in the UK, where it largely escaped tabloid attention. Moreover, the behind-the-scenes presence of two female directors supposedly inoculated it against charges of misogyny, with one of its creators explaining that "this movie is not for masturbation, so therefore it is not porn". Not everyone was convinced. On its release in France, Baise-moi was dismissed by critics as "a sick fi lm" that "throws sex in your face to sell blood and gore". Grindhouse (2007) Grindhouse is Tarantino and Rodriguez's homage to the exploitation genre: a gleeful double feature that comes awash with vixenish go-dancers and killer zombies; peppered with fictional trailers and spoof commercials. Despite glowing reviews, the wheeze appears to have flummoxed the American public. There have been reports of audiences filing out after the first half, apparently unaware that there was another feature still to come, and the box office has been middling. The production will now be sawn in two and released as two separate pictures. Tarantino's section competes for top honours at next month's Cannes film festival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holysmoke Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! [video width=400 height=350:d666d26e33]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYu6fpaNrBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Entertainment - I like films which are intelligent, which stay one step ahead of the viewer, have good dialogues with good camera work. The suff which is aweing not ur normal run of the mill stuff which i have come to loathe. Thts why i rate shawshank redemption ahead of pulp. Imdb - its impossible to do wat u ask for. Violence - I actually hate the extreme stuff, i cudnt watch that stab into uma thurman's heart. I loathe wat was written in that article. However i do not mind mild violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feverpitch Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Entertainment - I like films which are intelligent, which stay one step ahead of the viewer, have good dialogues with good camera work. The suff which is aweing not ur normal run of the mill stuff which i have come to loathe. Thts why i rate shawshank redemption ahead of pulp. The reason why I asked for your opinion is to demonstrate how difficult it is to be very specific about our likes and dislikes. All your above statements are generalised. They would need umpteen caveats to become more precise. For example, how far intelligent are you willing to go along with? Who will judge the intelligence of a particular film? Most film critics accept the films of French auteur Jean Luc Godard as being intelligent (to the point of sometimes being indecipherable). Would you ever watch a film by this director, or any other non-Holly/Bolly film with subtitles? Imdb - its impossible to do wat u ask for. No problem. As long as you get my drift. Violence - I actually hate the extreme stuff, i cudnt watch that stab into uma thurman's heart. I loathe wat was written in that article. However i do not mind mild violence. I can speak for myself. I abhor violence, but I've sat through many a film depicting extreme scenes of violence, depravity, degradation ? when I have been convinced that the films are sincere in what they are trying to depict, and doing it sensitively. Of course, both sensitivity and sincerity are qualitative attributes and cannot be quantified, so I wouldn't be surprised if people have a different opinion about what I felt when I saw them. As for example, Gaspar Noe's Irreversible, Chung Ji Woo's Happy Endu or Ingmar Bergman's Virgin Spring. What I like best is though indirect allusion as opposed to direct depiction. Some of the most horrifying films I've seen are by the Austrian helmer Michael Haneke, in whose films you'd rarely come across a full depiction of graphic violence, and yet all his films are about extremely violent topics, and they have left me with a feeling of blood curdling dread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! I love the character Marsellus Wallace - especially his chat with Butch (Bruce Willis) at bar - on the day of the fight, you'll feel a slight tinge in your head. its pride fkkin wit'ch you! FKK pride!! he goes on and then finally, you my n!gg@? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator_05 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Good films should have a plot at the very least, and Pulp Fiction is just some random, freaky and nonsensical scenes thrown together into a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Re: Pulp Fiction - Watta a Fu**** Movie!! Good films should have a plot at the very least' date=' and Pulp Fiction is just some random, freaky and nonsensical scenes thrown together into a movie.[/quote'] Thats an overly simplistic criticism Predator. Most movies(90% plus I say) are fairly apparent within 15 minutes of watching them. You quite possibly know how it is going to end, right down to the final shot where the hero executes the villain. Movies like Pulp Fiction, well you have to watch till the very last reel to see how it ends and there is a unique beauty to that. You are perhaps hinting at how four(or more) different story lines seem to happen at the same time and sometimes they have a common thread, other times they do not. That kind of story telling was a pathbeaker for Pul Fiction and one reason why it is considered solid gold and won the best movie Oscar. Today of course it is not uncommon and you may see many movies copy that, one quick one that comes to mind if Crash(incidentally another Oscar winner). If imitation is sincerest form of flattery then I doubt any movie has invoked more imitation then Pulp Fiction. xxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts