Look on his trivia and scroll down to the part where he names his two best films....THAT MEANS THIS FILM INSPIRED THE WORK OF A GENIUS
shareHe only lists it as a favorite film because he wants people to think "wow isn't that guy strange and unique. He likes the worst movie ever, he's so crazy."
shareok maybe not THAT good, but Deathproof is a good contender
shareYeah I can tell, just look at his movies. TOTAL CRAP!!!
shareDon't be an idiot. Millions of people very much enjoy his work, and he is more than competent. There are assloads of crap movies come out all the time and you generic idiots have to insult some of the better ones, why to be trendy?
share[deleted]
BS! I liked Pulp Fiction
shareHe claimed it was his favorite "comedy", so he acknowledges how bad it is. The way this thread is doesn't surprise me, it's almost as if it's become cool to hate on Tarantino these days. I have a lot of movies that I feel are so bad that they are good, I'm sure this would be one of them. People need to stop nit-picking QT and maybe just watch his films, instead of sucking the over-wrought cock of David Lynch. He is the pretentious *beep* who doesn't give a *beep* less about his audience, trying to dictate how a person watches a DVD in their own home.
Don't be an idiot. Millions of people very much enjoy his work, and he is more than competent. There are assloads of crap movies come out all the time and you generic idiots have to insult some of the better ones, why to be trendy?
What's wrong with homage? His vision is a representation of nihilism, in the violence, cinematography, and so on. Why does everything have to be a testament to the depth and beauty in the world? Is it wrong that he represents a different brand of film making, which is really just about loving the movies. that's what he does, he makes films about movies. He is an ambassador of the VCR generation, and his career also attests to the buoyancy of the french new wave. His films structure (or lack thereof, not a negative though) show that a film can really be purely about the enjoyment of seeing a film rather than upholding the ancient ideals behind conventional art film making.
Now, why any of those things would make him a vacuous and masturbatory *beep* is anyone's guess. At least he isn't a pretentious *beep* like David Lynch, which I have already mentioned. Not everything has to be "American Beauty" you know.
Also, spoiled? Really? The guy is a high school drop out who was born to a 16 year old mother who went on to become one of the most respected and significant names in the film business, independently I might add. It's not like he got in because of his looks or because he paid off Harvey Weinstein. The guy just knows how to make a film and he had enough ambition and drive to do so. In my opinion, the attacks on Tarantino are usually quite unfounded and unfair. I mean, it's not as if Scorcese is a director that presents a lot of depth or character arcs, besides "Taxi Driver" respectively which is only itself barely of that cinematic ilk.
sharethe only persons who attacks the movies of David Lynch doesn't, generally speaking, understand them. just something i noticed.. the films confuse the braincells of these viewers, and they tend to get aggravated because of that, and therefore bash the acclaimed director - just because the viewer can't see anything that the others can. your entitled to your opinion, but to bash Lynch by ranting like that.. is.. well, interesting. lol
and Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors of all time. Unconventional filmmaking is always best - originality always makes entertainmnet evolve, and the trendsetters in unconventionalism is the things that will be remembered.
Why is it impossible that maybe I just genuinely do not like his films? They do indeed deny me the pleasures that come with more conventional films, but assuming I don't understand them because I bash him is dismissive and close minded. I think he is a pretentious *beep* not only reflected in his films but also in his character. If you watch an interviews he is obviously a director completely unwilling to consider an audience. He creates incoherent and long films and then says nothing about them. Excuse me for wanting a little exposition with the films I watch.
All he has to say is that "Eraserhead" is a "spiritual" movie, I'm sorry I'm not a spiritual person and from the subject matter he presents I have trouble finding anything spiritual about it. If you deny that I have the capacity for making an attempt to distinguish the themes of the films let me try to make you see differently. Perhaps his mutant baby is a representation of how convoluted the pressures of starting a family are in the society we live in and when we force ourselves to adapt to these things (or are forced to as we find our protagonist Henry Spencer in) we can find that it can take a turn towards the detrimental and we will be unable to get out of it. He claims to find the normality of society peculiar, as if he comes from another planet or something. If you think about it, the way you interpret films like this is by looking at the images with a literal mind and connecting them to other literal ideas to get a theme. It's just a more confusing way to do what more conventional films already do.
As far as unconventional film making, QT can definitely attest to that. However, surrealist film making reached a dead end when "Un Chien Andalou" was introduced. The reason being that it only had one point and I hail Luis Buenel for having the decency to explain it. The only point is, that you can suggest things to an audience without giving them a linear narrative. David Lynch has done nothing to forward that, his films are just a longer version of "Un Chien Andalou" and to me (this being my opinion) makes them uninteresting. So I find it very unfair that you assume I am simple minded only because I dislike a director who is well liked in the art film community. It's also sad that you find you can label someone by their film taste.
Queintin Tarintino KNOWS a good movie when he watches a great movie.
I agree with him, too.
You have a very "mixed" opinion.
David Lynch, if he is being revolutionary for something, is because he is one of the living filmmakers to understand the possibilities that filmmaking has. It is more than just telling a story. You see, there are movies than can be very reflexive than just being simply entertaining, but I don't think both qualities need to be quarreled (I enjoy Lynch's as Tarantino's, Burton's and Welles and some other- as Kubrick's and Bergman's- films).
You have said that you didn't find anything in "Eraserhead" that appeal Lynch statement of "spiritual", so you suggest that someone must be a "spiritual" and religious man for liking it (I'm not a religious man, I must say), you have a big contradiction here. It's not that Lynch just cheat people who goes to see his works just as if they were just like from other film directors; they (the audience) need to have "expanded minds" and putting his part as an audience, but most people just want something to be mashed up for them and being previously explained, so they end up spoiled and therefore annoyed. Lynch, as Buñuel, it's not already adapted with the established at filmmaking. Both they leave the conventions behind and they take risks to create new ideas.
And with "Manos: The hands of fate", it's really an awful (truly awful) and dreadful movie, it's just an unfortunate accident that it should never happen. I understand why Tarantino considers it his favorite "comedy"; I laughed a lot watching it. So, if you "like" a funny film like this one it makes you a bad guy???
CLOSE THE DOOR AND OPEN A WINDOW
I agree, however I simply cannot agree that David Lynch is a considerate filmmaker. Bergman can back up "Persona", he can present something accessible to an audience in an unconventional manner. Lynch treats his films like a scavenger hunt or a word search. He presents these films that appear to be so lofty and it entices you to try to understand the director's intentions, yet he doesn't give his audiences anything except for denying them the pleasure of a scene selection on his dvd's. He says nothing and then comes out three decades later only saying he's heard hundred's of interpretations and none of them came close. He goes about himself as if he has these gigantic idea's in his head that aren't worthy of human beings who can't figure it out themselves.
You can make a bold and lofty statement without making your films inaccessible to an average audience. As a contributor to the film business (that being the distribution of films, meaning that you are essentially selling merchandise), he does a poor job of considering the people who give his art power. These people who he apparently considers too stupid to interpret the "lofty" ideas in his head, not to mention too stupid to be impacted by films unless they view upon them his way. I was also commenting on the fellow who said that I don't like his films because I "don't understand them", according to David Lynch neither do you so here we are.
It isn't really his films, I love "Blue Velvet" and "Elephant Man", it's him. He's a pretentious *beep* who holds himself higher than the people who make his art anything other than masturbation, which in my opinion is pretty much all it is.
Well, it's your cup of tea. What I like about Lynch's films is that, he makes his way to express his films in this risky way; and as Tarantino, popular culture becomes the distorted mirror reflected in the audience.
I can't really speak to you if Lynch is just being pretentious; random images pulled in a story that doesn't even explain theirselves can be considerate pretentious, I agree; Lynch at least can put (and disintegrate) sequences but actually showing and suggesting something (that reminds me of, above mentioned, Buñuel).
Only he says that his movies should see from beginning to end, so he doesn't put scene selections on his Dvd's.
CLOSE THE DOOR AND OPEN A WINDOW
And says that anyone who watches films on the I-Phone is an idiot, and that you should rearrange your furniture in your living room in order to experience a film in a way that would satisfy him. He has no problems calling people ignorant or idiots over something as trivial as the way a person watches a movie.
share
Well, then this discuss is out of place here; at least in context, we should discuss about Lynch on his own board...
CLOSE THE DOOR AND OPEN A WINDOW
I loathe Lynch and Tarentino equally, they are both terrible filmmakers. And please do take any Lynch or Tarentino argument to their boards, since the rest of us don't care about this topic at all. We're talking about Manos here, a movie that at least has the distinction of being involuntarily entertaining, something that most Lynch and Tarentino films can't even claim.
shareI wasn't the one who started the topic which is called verbatim, "Quentin Tarantino only likes and only makes bogus films..." I don't know if you're necessarily savvy to the topic at hand.
Anyway, Lynch sucks and Tarantino rules, that is in my opinion. It's films like "Manos" that give Tarantino's films a great flavor. They are very mature and well constructed films that take on a hokey nuance, and anyone who has ever watched a kung-fu film, spaghetti western, 70's gangster film, or any thing like "Manos" and liked it would know exactly why Tarantino is so great. If not, then I suppose you're a fan of "Fight Club" because you feel philosophical and enlightened watching it and enjoy quoting it on your networking space. Though it is a great film and that may be a gross generalization, I don't care. *beep* you.
You can entertain yourself crushing Coke cans with your head or watching cheap XXX films, it's whatever you please*; I like both Lynch and Tarantino, considering them "master filmmakers" is something personal with critics, I see (mostly) what everyone says about their films, and I liked them (their films) personally; I like both "Pulp Fiction" and "Lost Highway", "Eraserhead" and "Reservoir Dogs"...
With "Manos...", I hardly consider it "entertaining", even in the "MST3K" episode, I only get the joke about this.
And my first comment(*), it wasn't on an aggressive way.
CLOSE THE DOOR AND OPEN A WINDOW
"Unconventional filmmaking is always best - originality always makes entertainmnet evolve, and the trendsetters in unconventionalism is the things that will be remembered. "
Since Tarentino's movies are copies (what you call hommage) of other films you shouldn't use words like unconventional or originality when you talk about him.
"Since Tarantino's movies are copies (what you call homage) of other films you shouldn't use words like unconventional or originality when you talk about him. "
Tarantino rips off so many cinematic techniques and concepts that the hack-artistry actually flies off into the distance, passes infinity and loops back around to become something entirely original again.
I love Lynch's movies, and don't pretend to begin to understand them (well, his surreal ones anyway). They're just experiences, beautiful, scary, odd, beguiling, engrossing, off-putting, absorbing experiences. Not all films need a story to be gripping.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My list of films I consider good; http://www.imdb.com/list/HhtSboRgtg0/
You sound like a huge industry loser who is jealous of success that's not your own. Tarantino and Cameron can *beep* whatever you do out of their *beep* for breakfast.
sharehmm, i agree with a lot of what you have said on this thread and also can not stand david lynch and love luis buñuel...can you further explain that part about how lynch tries to dictate how a person watches a dvd in their own home tho, or perhaps provide a link to the material you are referring to?...it would be much appreciated :)...
shareHe claimed it was his favorite "comedy", so he acknowledges how bad it is. The way this thread is doesn't surprise me, it's almost as if it's become cool to hate on Tarantino these days. I have a lot of movies that I feel are so bad that they are good, I'm sure this would be one of them. People need to stop nit-picking QT and maybe just watch his films, instead of sucking the over-wrought cock of David Lynch. He is the pretentious *beep* who doesn't give a *beep* less about his audience, trying to dictate how a person watches a DVD in their own home.
----------------------------------------------------
Tarantino may like some B movies, but the ones that he likes... always have some great points. I don't believe this is one of his favourites.
I don't hate Tarantino, I love some of his work, but I think that Inglorious is a piece of s***. It is just his last movie, maybe the next one its decent, ok, or a masterpiece (to me).
It's just as cool too hate on Lynch as it is to hate on Tarentino. It's like the kids in the late 90's that used to like Nirvana, and then when they find out about music that's even more underground they pretend they were always "hip" and "in the know" and then pretend their tastes were always "too underground" for bands like Nirvana.
David Lynch is at the point in his career where he really doesn't need any more money, so he just makes what he wants to, and if his fans like it, fine, if not... oh well. I'll admit Inland Empire made him a little drunk with power on testing the limits of an audience's attention span, since he could film the project so cheap digitally.
He has his artistic own vision, like it or not, and if he wants to make his dvd's be watched in full that's his prerogative.
Ah that makes sense. But I gotta say I don't think it even works as a comedy the way Birdemic does, because it's sooooooooo slooooowwwww.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Is anybody on this thread capable of writing QT's name correctly? It's not Queintin Tarintino, it's not Tarentino, it's simply "Quentin Tarantino", for chrissake! It's not that hard, is it?
"Fine I'll build my own theme park with black jack and hookers..."
It's a very, very bad B-movie. Tarantino LOVES B-movies. He loves it ironically.
share