A (terrible) Tarantino rip-off - Sushi Girl (2012) Discussion

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

Frankly, you're wrong. It's not a Tarantino rip-off for the reasons you state. Furthermore, it's a good movie, you just don't seem know what you're talking about.

Let me explain:

1. The font used isn't a reference to Pulp Fiction in the least. Go watch Pulp Fiction again and you'll see how wrong you are- the fonts used in that film are completely different. It's actually the same font used in Shaft and tons of other exploitation and mainstream releases from the 1970s. Clearly, you aren't informed enough to make this judgment call.

2. You must not have seen any Ennio Morricone Westerns because the music at the end of Sushi Girl is in no way, shape or form similar to anything that's been in Morricone-scored films, let alone Westerns. You clearly aren't informed enough to make that call either. The Sushi Girl score is actually patterned after John Barry's Bond scores of the late 60's and early 70's- there's nothing remotely "Western" about it.

3. Sushi Girl doesn't copy the torture from Reservoir Dogs. In Reservoir Dogs, the torture is of a cop and is very brief. This is a completely different scenario, with completely different characters. The cop in RD is completely expendable, but Fish is a main character in SG. The only similarities to Reservoir Dogs is that it's a dude strapped to a chair being terrorized by a psycho and the main goal of the crooks is to find out where their diamonds are... actually, the location of the diamonds in Reservoir Dogs isn't ever the point of interrogation because Mr. Pink clearly states he hid them. The crooks all want to know which one of them is the rat, but the cop is shot dead before anyone even asks him about that. He ends up being tortured for torture sake and killed very shortly thereafter in a completely meaningless way for almost equally meaningless reasons. Vastly different from what happens in Sushi Girl. What you're saying is akin to thinking all asian people look the same, it's a very surface-level assessment. It's uninformed and just plain wrong. Furthermore, you writing this makes me think you've never seen another movie that features a guy getting tied to a chair and tortured. I bet you haven't seen Marathon Man, since you didn't pick up on the reference to that film either, and I'd say that it's a bit more blatant of an homage than any of the Reservoir Dogs references. Again, you don't seem to be informed enough to make this call.

4. The blood didn't dry! Look closer, it was clearly liquid to the end. It appeared blacker because: A.) there was a great deal more blood coming from his wounds than the beginning, so of course it's going to look darker when there's that much of it, and B.) the lighting in the movie became more contrasty as the story progressed, pushing some of the darker reds closer to a blackish tone... But no, you surely wouldn't be able to pick up on that artistic subtlety because you're so concerned with the realism of the blood. "Oh no, that blood looks black, this movie is totally inaccurate! Screw artistic intention, it's a terrible film!" Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

5. I agree with you about Hamill's performance, but it isn't wasted on this film and this film isn't a waste. This film is wasted on you. It's fine if you don't like it, but if you're going to call it a bad Reservoir Dogs ripoff, at least know what you're talking about.

reply

[–] skat1140 11 years ago

Clearly, you're an idiot fanboi and/or are financially attached to this movie.

This is the only explanation for your blatant inattention to the truth and your sad mangling of logic and common sense. See, facts are stubborn things and facts aren't on your side.

1. The font used is the same font used in the Pulp Fiction titles and on Jules' BAD MOTHER***ER wallet.

2. Gee, I guess I didn't see almost every Morricone and Sergio Leone film ever made. You must be right. Oh, wait, no you're wrong again. The ending music very much had a Morricone-esque Western style music. You're an idiot again.

3. Oh Gee, it didn't copy the chair torture scene word for word. That means it's OK to do a Reservoir Dogs rip-off AND put the chair torture scene in and no one will notice. It doesn't matter that it's a slightly different context, you idiot. It still resonates with the viewer as Yet Another Thing this movie has in common with Reservoir Dogs. If you're doing a homage, you need to ADD something; you can't just copy.

4. So you even quibble with this, and are an expert makeup critic? His cheeks were BLACK, you troll. It looked like what they do in horror movies-- where they are not going for realism, but surrealism. Blood does not clot they way they depicted it. They just got it wrong. But you're so invested in this film (for some unknown reason), you feel the need to defend even their poor makeup effects department. This obviously wasn't a salient point; but IF the movie is terrible to begin with, then, yes, terrible makeup effects make it all the more laughable.

5. If you try to tell people they don't know what they are talking about, you need to first know what you are talking about. You do not. Therefore, you really should, think about the maxim "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

6. The plot. The shootings at the end didn't even make any sense. The wild guy kills the chair guy JUST as he's about to "confess" (even though we know he had nothing to confess). Then, black guy finishes off Crow (but Why? black guy should only be doing this if HE has the diamonds, but we learn it was sushi girl who has them); he has no motive for murdering Crow. It was just garbage.

No non-partisan viewer comes away from this movie without thinking:

A) this movie is a bad movie;

B) this movie is a bad and obvious rip-off of Tarantino.

In the future, if you're going to pick a movie to defend with your life and fragile ego, pick a GOOD movie to defend.

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

"Clearly, you're an idiot fanboi and/or are financially attached to this movie. "

Assumptions, assumptions, you're just like any other IMDB troll that just gets off on trashing movies. One could say that you're just an idiot Tarantino fanboy that thinks everything he craps out is gold and anyone that has a style remotely similar in tone and subject matter is just trying to rip him off.

"See, facts are stubborn things and facts aren't on your side."

I hate to break it to you, but your opinions aren't facts, and nothing you've stated in this post is a factual refute of anything I've pointed out to you.

1. "The font used is the same font used in the Pulp Fiction titles..."

Incorrect. Watch Pulp Fiction again. The credits aren't even remotely similar. You have no idea what you're talking about.

"...and on Jules' BAD MOTHER***ER wallet."

Oh, you mean the wallet that you see for 2 seconds? Yeah, guess where that font came from: Shaft, and hundreds of other films from the 1970s. The use of the font in Sushi Girl is actually a reference to the opening titles of the Charles Bronson movie The Mechanic, which you probably haven't seen either. The font is called ITC Pioneer and it wasn't created for Pulp Fiction, it had been in use decades prior- a wide range of uses that weren't limited to movies. Again, you don't seem to know all that much, but fact is that Tarantino didn't create, nor does he own the copyright on that font. Looks like the facts ARE actually on my side.

2. So then tell me which Morricone-scored Western the score for Sushi Girl is ripping off. Prove that it's ripping that score off... you can't, because it's not. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so. Your opinions aren't facts, so you're the idiot in this case.

3. "If you're doing a homage, you need to ADD something"

So the use of a glass sock to rip the protagonists face off isn't an addition? You must be really obtuse. Everything I pointed out in my last post was illustrating just how different the torture in Reservoir Dogs is from Sushi Girl. The ONLY thing comparable is that a dude is strapped to a chair and he's being mutilated- Dogs isn't the first film or the last film to do this. There was no glass sock in Tarantino's torture, no chopsticks to the knee, no pulling out of the teeth (which is an homage to Marathon Man, which you completely ignored!), only a pan away from an ear being cut off with a straight razor and quick and merciful gunshots to the chest. Tarantino doesn't own the rights to the plot device of having a character strapped to a chair and tortured. The torture in Sushi Girl is carried out for completely different reasons than it is in Reservoir Dogs. So, if it's really not THAT similar, then, according to your definition of homage, how the hell is Sushi Girl ripping Reservoir Dogs off?

4. "So you even quibble with this, and are an expert makeup critic?"

Are you an expert makeup critic? What gives you authority to say whether the makeup was well-done or not?

"It looked like what they do in horror movies-- where they are not going for realism, but surrealism."

Given the over-the-top nature of this film, why is this a problem?

"Blood does not clot they way they depicted it."

So now you're an authority on what someone's shredded face should actually look like?

You said the blood clotted black, which it doesn't. It's not clotted, it's still liquid when Fish is killed. My point was that the stylized cinematography made the blood red appear darker than it probably would be in real life... the whole concept is that it was an artistic decision, and you chose to berate the filmmakers because it's not realistic. That makes little sense, given the style they were going for.

"This obviously wasn't a salient point; but IF the movie is terrible to begin with, then, yes, terrible makeup effects make it all the more laughable. "

You're the one who chose to make a big stink about it in the first place. I was merely pointing out how foolish your criticisms were in this case. Fact remains that Sushi Girl isn't a terrible movie and the makeup effects aren't terrible either. You just think they are, and you're not the final word. Stop presenting your opinions as facts. Try to back up your opinions with facts, instead of more opinions.

And why do you think that everyone who defends a film has to have a vested interest in that film? You're just coming up with false reasons to try and invalidate my points, as if I'm being emotional about all of this. Let's be clear- you're the one who started calling me names, not vice versa. I think that says more about which one of us is behaving rationally and impartially.

5 "If you try to tell people they don't know what they are talking about, you need to first know what you are talking about. You do not. Therefore, you really should, think about the maxim "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." "

Nice try. This immature "don't talk back to me" crap won't work.

Your arguments are incredibly flawed. I presented a few solid facts to back up my points. All you've presented are hollow opinions with nothing to support them. You can't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when you haven't demonstrated that you know any better. You don't, because every time I bring up a salient point, like the Marathon Man homage, you completely ignore it. Why? Because you probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

6. "The shootings at the end didn't even make any sense."

Yes, they did. Duke's actual mission was to eliminate them. He had hoped they would lead him to the diamonds, but they didn't. He eliminated them because he's a sociopath.

"The wild guy kills the chair guy JUST as he's about to "confess" (even though we know he had nothing to confess)."

It was continually demonstrated throughout the film that Max has a very short fuse and wanted to "win" the bet. His brand of interrogation is heavy-handed, thus, he felt the need to pummel the information out of Fish. It is also alluded to that this is not the first time Max has gone too far with interrogations, and he seemed to fight the urge to inflict more and more pain throughout the course of the night. Therefore, his actions are not hard to understand, and the ultimate irony of Fish senselessly dying at his hands when all he wanted was to make him finally talk are not story flaws.

"Then, black guy finishes off Crow (but Why? black guy should only be doing this if HE has the diamonds, but we learn it was sushi girl who has them)"

Why does it have to be that way? Because you say it should?

Maybe the theory Francis yells at everyone during the climax was correct. Maybe Duke really just wants to tie up his loose ends. Maybe the diamonds are a bonus. Duke indicates this may be the case when he "confesses" to Sushi Girl after killing everyone. Why wait six years? Well, Fish was inaccessible in jail and it would be a lot easier to make it look like everyone killed each other over the missing loot once he got out. Maybe he'd find out where the rocks were and have the whole pot to himself. Maybe he's just that much of a scheming puppet master that he had the patience to wait six years just to eliminate a potential leak. Maybe there's more we don't know.

The truth is that there are so many ways to read into the crooks' behavior and dialogue. Maybe you're just not thinking three-dimensionally.

I saw him shooting Crow as more of a mercy kill than anything else. The guy was all shot up and was asking for a hospital. What happens when you bring a shot-up dude into the hospital? The cops get involved. No way is that happening. Cut the limb off to save the body.

There are plenty of motives. You're just convinced it's garbage because you think you've got all the answers and it didn't spoon-feed you like you're used to.

"No non-partisan viewer comes away from this movie without thinking:

A) this movie is a bad movie;

B) this movie is a bad and obvious rip-off of Tarantino. "

Another set of useless and baseless opinions masquerading as facts, nothing more.

Prove to me that every non-partisan viewer feels this way. You can't. There are some fantastic reviews out there by people who have no connection whatsoever to the film or the people who made it. Not everybody feels the way you do, and that's a fact.

It seems to be a rather polarizing film, sure, but most of the people I've seen talking trash on these message boards don't have intelligent, fact-based arguments. They all just want a soapbox to make themselves feel better... what's your issue? Why do you choose to come here and rant to strangers about movies you don't like?

This movie also isn't an obvious Tarantino ripoff, nor a poor homage for that matter. You just keep reiterating this as if it's the truth, but you haven't actually presented any facts to support it. Your words carry no weight, sir. You can scream and shout and repeat all you want, but it won't make your crappy, self-absorbed opinions any more factual.

"In the future, if you're going to pick a movie to defend with your life and fragile ego, pick a GOOD movie to defend."

I did pick a GOOD movie to defend. Sushi Girl is a good movie. It's not perfect, and it's certainly not the best movie ever made in my opinion, but it is a damn good movie, particularly for being a low-budget indie film. You are free to disagree, but don't try to say that everyone thinks it's crap because you do. That's just ridiculous.

As for the fragile ego comment, that's rather hypocritical of you... your argument style is quite revealing. Facts are stubborn things, eh?

reply

[–] skat1140 11 years ago

"Assumptions, assumptions." I copied your style for my last reply just to walk a spell in your shoes.

I don't need to list all the ridiculous assumptions you make about me. Here's a hint. Every single time you've said "And you probably haven't seen ____", you've been wrong. (Like it's a great or difficult accomplishment to have seen Bronson's The Mechanic, in any case.) Only a troll writes this way.

You're the biggest troll I've seen on imdb. But you're also the most pompous.

And, funnily enough, you have knowledge of the various genres, and you _still_ persist in thinking Sushi Girl is a movie of quality. I'll break it down for you. You have eyeballs. You have a brain. You have time on your hands, a lot of it. So you spend your time watching these movies through your eyeballs. But your brain doesn't sufficiently discriminate what your eyeballs see. You have no taste. Your brain isn't developed enough to halt you from wasting your time.

Anyway, I don't have the time to process your 20 paragraphs of self-defensive diatribes. And good luck with that brain.

How did you get this movie anyway? Is it out at Blockbusters already?

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

""Assumptions, assumptions." I copied your style for my last reply just to walk a spell in your shoes."

Would you call that an homage, or are you just ripping me off? :)

"I don't need to list all the ridiculous assumptions you make about me. Here's a hint. Every single time you've said "And you probably haven't seen ____", you've been wrong."

I've tasked you to prove me wrong. It is something that you either refuse to do or are simply incapable.

I suppose now because you wrote that, I am to assume that you've seen every Leone movie AND every movie Morricone scored and can tell me exactly which score Sushi Girl is ripping off at the end? Please elaborate, because if I'm not mistaken, you just completely ignored that point. Again.

Logic states that you're doing this for one of two reasons: Either you're full of crap and really have no answer, or you know and you're deliberately being obtuse. Since you seem to be dead set on attacking me personally instead of answering the challenge and offering up some tangible information that supports your arguments, I have no choice but to conclude that you really don't know what you're talking about and that your words have been nothing more than hot air for the sake of irritation and/or the false assertion of "winning" the argument. In either case, that's EXACTLY how a troll acts...

Out of the two of us, I've actually had rational answers based in fact, you've made a bunch of assertions that turned out to be, well, bogus. Every time I refute one of your claims, you respond with the equivalent of "you're wrong because I say so", and completely ignore my evidence to the contrary. So, do trolls debate movies intelligently, backing up their opinions with facts, or do they accuse, berate, and belittle the other person while avoiding all of the hard questions? I think the record will clearly show which one of us is actually the troll. Are those facts on your side?

"(Like it's a great or difficult accomplishment to have seen Bronson's The Mechanic, in any case.) Only a troll writes this way. "

So now it's a question of whether or not The Mechanic is distinguished enough of a reference, whether it's actually worthy of an homage? Or do you mean to talk down to me, as if I'm the member of some lower species than you because I could connect the dots of a somewhat obscure reference that actually IS being paid homage, not the more modern, far more visible work of Tarantino?

No matter what way you look at it, if you were to compare the three credits sequences, I think you'll find that Sushi Girl and The Mechanic match much more closely than Sushi Girl and Pulp Fiction, which pretty much invalidates your argument that Sushi Girl is cribbing from Tarantino in that case. Would a troll make this lucid point? Or would a troll act irrationally to draw attention away from this point? Again, the answer is clear.

"You're the biggest troll I've seen on imdb. But you're also the most pompous."

And another personal attack. You're really winning this argument, aren't you?

In general, do trolls love the films they argue about, or hate them? Typically, a troll's motivator is a dislike for things, thus they feel the need to tear those things down. Which one of us is the hater here?

"And, funnily enough, you have knowledge of the various genres, and you _still_ persist in thinking Sushi Girl is a movie of quality."

That's because it IS a movie of quality. It is actually very well constructed, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but don't pretend that your opinion is a universal fact, especially when I have already stated evidence that proves you you are wrong in that case. There are a lot of people out there that like it. There are some people that might even LOVE it. And they will ALL disagree with your inaccurate claims.

"I'll break it down for you."

No, let me break it down for YOU one more time so we are clear: You were wrong about the opening credits. You were wrong about the Leone music. You were wrong about every non-partisan viewer thinking it's both a bad movie and a poor Tarantino imitation. Those are supported by facts. Facts that aren't in your favor. You haven't been able to prove otherwise.

"You have eyeballs."

Yes, I do. The better with to see your treacherous ways.

"You have a brain."

Yes, I have that too. And I am using it, is yours working properly?

"You have time on your hands, a lot of it."

Not nearly as much as you think. I do still work hard to pay my rent.

"So you spend your time watching these movies through your eyeballs."

Yes, I spend as much time as I can afford watching all kinds of movies, from all areas of the globe, from all budget ranges and genres and time periods. I've seen a lot of mainstream films and I've seen many obscure ones too.

"But your brain doesn't sufficiently discriminate what your eyeballs see."

Oh, you were doing so well there. How disappointing. Back to assumptions now. Again, it's not the truth because you decree it so. If you want me to get all technical, it's impossible for you to know this, as you've never met me, let alone had a look inside the pathways between by eyes and my brain. You have absolutely no factual evidence to back this up, yet again.

"You have no taste."

And now and even broader assumption... you know, for a guy that doesn't seem to be able to defend what he does know, you're awfully persistent at stating what you don't have a clue about and cannot prove.

"Your brain isn't developed enough to halt you from wasting your time."

Your persistence is quite admirable, though. Talk about having time to waste. The only thing that's wasting my time is your ridiculously pointless retorts.

"Anyway, I don't have the time to process your 20 paragraphs of self-defensive diatribes. And good luck with that brain."

Ah, so I'm defending myself now? I thought I was defending the film Sushi Girl and deconstructing your lame hijinks for what they are: vaporware. Why am I starting to feel like this conversation has become a little one-sided. Is it because you've consistently ignored all the facts I've thrown your way? You seem incapable of writing anything with substance.

So, you have time enough to respond to my posts, probably have read every single line I've typed, and you still choose to ignore the salient points and tough questions asked of you? Sounds like you're just here to play king of the hill. This, again, is typical troll behavior. Good luck with that.

"How did you get this movie anyway? Is it out at Blockbusters already?"

Where I live, it's been in theaters, on Video On Demand, and is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, Netflix and iTunes as of this past week. I've seen it a few times. The big question is, if you didn't know that, where did YOU get it from? Did you illegally download it from the internet? If so, you probably shouldn't be talking trash about it, since you didn't even bother to pay for it. What's the saying... don't bite the hand that feeds you?

reply

[–] TheEightiesAreBack 11 years ago

Sushi Girl definitely is a homage to Tarantino's work (Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs particularly).

reply

[–] ghostdog2041 11 years ago

If you think I'm reading all that, you're wacky.

Coming Soon... The December Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qj7fRpcXRI

reply

[–] mcgill_j 11 years ago

I caught the use of Diamonds Forever.. BUT I did take this not as homage or even ripoff of Tarantino but almost a weird what if spiritual sequel to Reservoir Dogs.. What if they had all lived and Mr. Pink got out of jail and the rest of the crew wanted the diamonds.. That is how I took and enjoyed the hell out of the film, much more than even I expected.

I will say though Hamill was indeed fantastic. At every turn campy over the top then sickeningly twisted. Loved it. For such a low budget flick inspired and stylish as hell.. Was surprised by the low rating.

reply

[–] MrBelette 11 years ago

This movie is a waste of time and money, but apparently not of talent because thre was not much to be found.

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

"This movie is a waste of time and money, but apparently not of talent because thre was not much to be found."

Care to explain your opinion, or are you just like every other hater troll on this board?

Also, learn to type properly before you criticize others.

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

"I did take this not as homage or even ripoff of Tarantino but almost a weird what if spiritual sequel to Reservoir Dogs.."

I think this is actually a really interesting interpretation, and not far from how I see it. I just see it as the next generation of filmmakers, having grown up on movies like early Tarantino, finally making their own movies, through lenses that naturally channel what QT has done. In many ways, he has taught them a certain cinema language. It's not unlike how Tarantino himself got started, by paying tribute to people like DePalma and Scorsese. In fact, I see a lot of Scorsese in Sushi Girl too. There's also a little Fincher, a little Kubrick, and more than a little Hitchcock, and that's not scratching very deep. There are references to (now) lesser-known films like Marathon Man and The Mechanic (the original Charlie Bronson version). And some great nods to Robocop.... every time I watch it, I catch more.

"For such a low budget flick inspired and stylish as hell.. Was surprised by the low rating."

Me too. Maybe this will end up being like Fight Club, which was rather widely panned on release, only to achieve a very positive cult status just a few years after. Actually, much like Fight Club, Sushi Girl gets better the more you see it. There are a lot of details in there that keep popping out at me through subsequent viewings.

reply

[–] SleuthoundSeburo 11 years ago

I feel the same way Jivetalkin. I've watched Sushi Girl twice now since I've bought the bluray a few days ago. I'm very impressed with everything about it.
The cast/acting, the story and the opening and ending credits songs. The use of the Issac Hayes song at the end was perfect. It made the ending so awesome. Gave me goosebumps. The opening song was awesome as well. I never heard that song before but I'm sure it is a classic song. It's great finding out about a movie like this that has had very little advertisment. I really wish I could have seen this awesome movie in a huge theatre.

---

Please.

reply

[–] censure360 11 years ago

I've been watching movies since I was a wee child, and this is a great example of exploitation film making. There are obvious homages to other exploitation films. This movie is not a rip-off... this is an original movie with suspense and well acted performances. I love Tarantino... and I would believe if master himself saw this film he would give it a positive review.

reply

[–] DavidImboden 11 years ago

ha the song at the end was walk on by, by isaac hayes. but that is still a very taran0tino-esque choice. and this movie does at times feel like diet reservoir dogs

reply

[–] jwwalrath-227-85487 11 years ago

All other points aside, the music wasn't even close to that of Ennio Moriccone.

reply

[–] ThreadHijacker 11 years ago

Movie was so slow and drawn out with a twist that could be seen from a mile away. The acting was embarrassing considering some of the talent involved. Everyone was over-acting everything and was so over dramatic. If Tony Todd talked and moved at a normal rate of speed like normal people the movie would've been 42 minutes long. Dramatic effect be damned. Some of the dialogue was cringe worthy and I am apparently one of the few that actually hated Mark Hamill's acting in this. I have been waiting for this movie to come out and I so wanted to like it, but I found so much wrong to me with this failed attempt at pulp that I don't even want to get into it anymore. The little film that tried too hard...

----------
Those that can do. Those that just say they can come to IMDb.

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

"...I found so much wrong to me with this failed attempt at pulp that I don't even want to get into it anymore."

Then you have no idea what pulp is.

reply

[–] ThreadHijacker 11 years ago

Then neither does Tarantino or Rodriguez because all this felt like was a bad homage to them.

pulp (pʌlp)

— n
1. soft or fleshy plant tissue, such as the succulent part of a fleshy fruit
2. a moist mixture of cellulose fibres, as obtained from wood, from which paper is made
3. a. a magazine or book containing trite or sensational material, and usually printed on cheap rough paper
b. ( as modifier ): a pulp novel

Here... hope that helps ya.

----------
Those that can do. Those that just say they can come to IMDb.

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

Well, there's no accounting for taste...

But seriously, if you're going to be a dick and post definitions of words, the definition of that word better explain what you're trying to say. In this case, your efforts completely failed.

You said this film was a poor attempt at pulp, and yet all you complain about is how the acting is over the top and the pace is slow and how it's all so unrealistic. Pulp ISN'T realistic. It's hyperbolic and lurid. Basically, you don't know what pulp is meant to look, sound and FEEL like. Go watch some old crime noir films from the 40's and 50's, or go read some Jim Thompson and Raymond Chandler novels, then you'll have a better understanding of what makes something "pulpy", and maybe a better appreciation for Sushi Girl, and a better understanding of where Tarantino came from.

reply

[–] bobafett75 11 years ago

Jive pretty much owned everyone in this thread.

reply

[–] trilbynhiss 11 years ago

He did? I must have missed that.

reply

[–] ThreadHijacker 11 years ago

shoot, man. I got owned hardcore. how shall I ever go on now? he apparently just loves to hear himself talk.

----------
Those that can do. Those that just say they can come to IMDb.

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 11 years ago

Yeah, I write responses to your crappy rationalizations of your ill-informed opinion so I can "hear myself talk"... Grow up.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seans_life 10 years ago

Skat1140 describes the movie as terrible when there wasn't one bit of fail acting in the picture and to see Mark Hamill perform in such a different role and nail it when all he is thought of being able to do is Skywalker was wonderful. The ending to this movie was surprising but I have to go back to see if we were given a clue as to it earlier. I am not sure if they did.
The character, Fish, played by Noah Hathaway, was tortured terribly in this movie and the pain portrayed on screen felt real. A wonderful display of acting by this man.
With just this said there is no way that this movie can be called terrible. You obviously don't know a decent movie when you see one and while I wouldn't add this to my greatest all-time list the movie is watchable, has a good story, and the actors nail everything they needed to.

reply

[–] Judge_Bullets 10 years ago

The movie was just poorly written. The actors did their best with the material, but it's clunky, forced and too on-the-nose. What do I mean by that? It wasn't clever. Sure, these guys aren't poets by any means, but the interactions in Reservoir Dogs (since everybody wants to make comparisons to that flick) are detailed. Each character has a unique voice.

Here, the only difference is the inflections and delivery. But the words, on paper, are too similar.

I agree it ended well, and it also started strong. But the middle bits dragged on far too long, and it just came off boring and stale. Not a horrific movie, but not a classic, gritty crime drama either.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ

reply

[–] ethermusic1981 10 years ago

I heartily disagree.

reply

[–] OlliKuhta 10 years ago

I´m going to watch this movie cos Sonny Chiba is in it. Btw, I liked Tarantino´s rip-off called City on Fire (directed by Ringo Lam in 1987). I mean liked Reservoir Dogs as well.

reply

[–] dalldorfw 9 years ago

"I´m going to watch this movie cos Sonny Chiba is in it."

You're not alone there.

reply