Pulp Fiction's on AMC (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

^^^^^^^

This guy hates No Country for Old Men. Take all of his movie reviews with a grain of salt.

 

[flapgreen]

Another great detail: Jimmy's wife is a black nurse.

 

[Raider Nation]

QT should stick to directing.

 

[flapgreen]

^^^^^^^

This guy hates No Country for Old Men. Take all of his movie reviews with a grain of salt.

Probably a good idea. I like what I like.

 

[TheMagus]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

 

[TheMagus]

QT should stick to directing.

Blasphemy. His cameo as Jimmie adds to the perfection of the movie because he is so awkward. It couldn't be any other way.

 

[Raider Nation]

Well..... let's not start _____________

On the short list of greatest single lines in movie history.

 

[TheMagus]

Even this scene... where they are completely over-analyzing and treating the Bonnie situation as a huge deal they had to call in the big guns for and the Wolf needs to explain to them how to clean out a car. Amazing.

Now I'm watching on AMC too.

 

[drummer]

Another great detail: Jimmy's wife is a black nurse.

 

[drummer]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

 

[drummer]

QT should stick to directing.

Blasphemy. His cameo as Jimmie adds to the perfection of the movie because he is so awkward. It couldn't be any other way.

You could have had any other real actor in that scene. I thought he was gonna pass out wheezing some of his lines - "YOU GOTTA CALL SOME PEOPLE?".

The acting was so good around him that he didn't matter though.

 

[TheMagus]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

 

[TheMagus]

QT should stick to directing.

Blasphemy. His cameo as Jimmie adds to the perfection of the movie because he is so awkward. It couldn't be any other way.

You could have had any other real actor in that scene. I thought he was gonna pass out wheezing some of his lines - "YOU GOTTA CALL SOME PEOPLE?".

The acting was so good around him that he didn't matter though.

The fact that he was so horrible added to the OTT nature of the entire Bonnie situation and the ridiculousness of that whole segment and from an artistic perspective I think that was THE POINT. I can't imagine that scene playing out any other way than Tarantino's awful trying to be a tough guy schtick that was so awkward. It wouldn't have been the same.

 

[drummer]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

QT should stick to directing.

His opening monologue in "Reservoir Dogs" gives him enough street cred to be on screen.

 

[drummer]

QT should stick to directing.

Blasphemy. His cameo as Jimmie adds to the perfection of the movie because he is so awkward. It couldn't be any other way.

You could have had any other real actor in that scene. I thought he was gonna pass out wheezing some of his lines - "YOU GOTTA CALL SOME PEOPLE?".

The acting was so good around him that he didn't matter though.

The fact that he was so horrible added to the OTT nature of the entire Bonnie situation and the ridiculousness of that whole segment and from an artistic perspective I think that was THE POINT. I can't imagine that scene playing out any other way than Tarantino's awful trying to be a tough guy schtick that was so awkward. It wouldn't have been the same.

He put himself in Reservoir Dogs too. He just gave himself a lot more lines in PF. Seriously, I can't even post one of his repeated lines with his scene. Somehow flapgreen thought it was genius that he had a black wife.

Like Jules Winfield would take that word too.

Again, one of the worst scenes in the movie, only saved by the other actors.

 

[drummer]

QT should stick to directing.

His opening monologue in "Reservoir Dogs" gives him enough street cred to be on screen.

Like in From Dusk Till Dawn?

 

[TheMagus]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

See I don't feel that way. Coen Brother's movies are hit or miss for me and I don't see a lot of consistency. For example... I adore Burn After Reading and that movie got panned both critically and financially IIRC. And there was nothing about Burn After Reading that I thought was similar to No Country for Old Men. Maybe that is the "range" you are discussing. There is a bit of an indy style there, but it most certainly is not uber consistent between Coen brothers movies because they do move around a lot. My reaction to No Country For Old Men was that it was desperately trying to be a Tarantino movie and failed miserably. It had that very raw violence, but for me personally it wasn't successful unless it had some sort of wit or cleverness that accompanied it, which it had none, but I felt it ignorantly thought it had.

I felt like No Country for Old Men was desperately trying to be something it wasn't and it just resulted in an unappealing mess. Sorry.

 

[drummer]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

See I don't feel that way. Coen Brother's movies are hit or miss for me and I don't see a lot of consistency. For example... I adore Burn After Reading and that movie got panned both critically and financially IIRC. And there was nothing about Burn After Reading that I thought was similar to No Country for Old Men. Maybe that is the "range" you are discussing. There is a bit of an indy style there, but it most certainly is not uber consistent between Coen brothers movies because they do move around a lot. My reaction to No Country For Old Men was that it was desperately trying to be a Tarantino movie and failed miserably. It had that very raw violence, but for me personally it wasn't successful unless it had some sort of wit or cleverness that accompanied it, which it had none, but I felt it ignorantly thought it had.

I felt like No Country for Old Men was desperately trying to be something it wasn't and it just resulted in an unappealing mess. Sorry.

Burn After Reading is closer to Pulp Fiction than No Country is.

 

[Raider Nation]

NCfOM didn't fail miserably at anything. It's firmly in my Top-5 movies ever, only behind the first two GFs for certain.

 

[drummer]

NCfOM didn't fail miserably at anything. It's firmly in my Top-5 movies ever, only behind the first two GFs for certain.

Yeah, you just knew any scene with Javier Bardem had a slim chance of ending well.

 

[TheMagus]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

See I don't feel that way. Coen Brother's movies are hit or miss for me and I don't see a lot of consistency. For example... I adore Burn After Reading and that movie got panned both critically and financially IIRC. And there was nothing about Burn After Reading that I thought was similar to No Country for Old Men. Maybe that is the "range" you are discussing. There is a bit of an indy style there, but it most certainly is not uber consistent between Coen brothers movies because they do move around a lot. My reaction to No Country For Old Men was that it was desperately trying to be a Tarantino movie and failed miserably. It had that very raw violence, but for me personally it wasn't successful unless it had some sort of wit or cleverness that accompanied it, which it had none, but I felt it ignorantly thought it had.

I felt like No Country for Old Men was desperately trying to be something it wasn't and it just resulted in an unappealing mess. Sorry.

Burn After Reading is closer to Pulp Fiction than No Country is.

OK? I don't see even the slightest similarity between Pulp Fiction and Burn After Reading, but OK? Maybe I'm completely off-base but I saw No Country For Old Men in the theater when it came out and I felt like it was going for that whole raw violence yet witty and clever storyline (aka Tarantino aka not just Pulp Fiction) and just did a miserable job of it. The actual concept and underlying story was so shallow it didn't require two brain cells to get it after the whole thing was over. Which just left us with a story of raw violence. Some people are into that. I'm not. I guess I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by saying there was some intelligence behind the whole story and the Coen Brothers were going for ironic violence. But that never really came together and Tommy Lee Jones' speech at the end of the movie was freaking cringeworthy. I was embarrassed for him because it was so dramatic in a story that wasn't actually that big of a deal. He was making a whole big deal out of a whole lot of nothing and I felt bad for him because it was embarrassing. The whole movie ended up being a cat-and-mouse thriller with the plot being an afterthought. Actually the end of the movie shoves it in your face that the plot didn't matter and the whole point was this cat-and-mouse game between two characters you've never grown emotionally attached to because they are completely emotionless characters and you don't give a bleep about them.

I'm not knocking your opinion, however I tend to be snobby about movies and a movie such as No Country for Old Men is going to get all my spidey BS senses up as something that is a hot mess because it was a hot mess.

 

[drummer]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

See I don't feel that way. Coen Brother's movies are hit or miss for me and I don't see a lot of consistency. For example... I adore Burn After Reading and that movie got panned both critically and financially IIRC. And there was nothing about Burn After Reading that I thought was similar to No Country for Old Men. Maybe that is the "range" you are discussing. There is a bit of an indy style there, but it most certainly is not uber consistent between Coen brothers movies because they do move around a lot. My reaction to No Country For Old Men was that it was desperately trying to be a Tarantino movie and failed miserably. It had that very raw violence, but for me personally it wasn't successful unless it had some sort of wit or cleverness that accompanied it, which it had none, but I felt it ignorantly thought it had.

I felt like No Country for Old Men was desperately trying to be something it wasn't and it just resulted in an unappealing mess. Sorry.

Burn After Reading is closer to Pulp Fiction than No Country is.

OK? I don't see even the slightest similarity between Pulp Fiction and Burn After Reading, but OK? Maybe I'm completely off-base but I saw No Country For Old Men in the theater when it came out and I felt like it was going for that whole raw violence yet witty and clever storyline (aka Tarantino aka not just Pulp Fiction) and just did a miserable job of it. The actual concept and underlying story was so shallow it didn't require two brain cells to get it after the whole thing was over. Which just left us with a story of raw violence. Some people are into that. I'm not. I guess I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by saying there was some intelligence behind the whole story and the Coen Brothers were going for ironic violence. But that never really came together and Tommy Lee Jones' speech at the end of the movie was freaking cringeworthy. I was embarrassed for him because it was so dramatic in a story that wasn't actually that big of a deal. He was making a whole big deal out of a whole lot of nothing and I felt bad for him because it was embarrassing. The whole movie ended up being a cat-and-mouse thriller with the plot being an afterthought. Actually the end of the movie shoves it in your face that the plot didn't matter and the whole point was this cat-and-mouse game between two characters you've never grown emotionally attached to because they are completely emotionless characters and you don't give a bleep about them.

I'm not knocking your opinion, however I tend to be snobby about movies and a movie such as No Country for Old Men is going to get all my spidey BS senses up as something that is a hot mess because it was a hot mess.

Clever and witty violence isn't a patented Tarantino sub-reality. We grew up with that in cartoons like Tom and Jerry. I get what you're saying, but you're comparing one movie to another with directors who made quite a few of them. What you expect out of a Tarantino movie is ultimately compared to the last Tarantino movie. The Coen Brothers have the same expectation of Tarantino of what's consistent. What makes them different is the scripts, and the influence behind them. Across the board, they both are very consistent at creating films that made small studio's huge, like Miramax.

Your conversation leads more to how they use violence, and they both use it a lot. The Coen Brothers even more - check out the cartoon-ish violence of Raising Arizona.

I think the Coen Brothers effect violence better than Martin Scorcese at this point. Because it's a lot more varied, has a lot more value to the story, still very violent like in Fargo, and Fargo didn't need a lot of violence to show how violent characters can be. There is more violence in script than to actually have to show it. You lead to violence, not play off of it. How do you set danger and the consequence of it? You do it by the danger itself. You don't have to bathe blood or guts.

We didn't see Josh Brolin die at the hands of Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men. What we more shocked at was the collateral damage of lives within that chase. Bardem's motives were cut and dry. You gather a group of sociopaths like in Pulp Fiction, and the results are more predictable due to having to involve a lot of dynamics. You give a sole killer a purpose, and you can write a whole story of one particular sociopath.

The violence of Travis Bickle is greater than the violence of Jules and Vincent. The violence of Travis Bickle comes from his orders in his head. It's singular violence of a character, not the collective violence of Tarantino. The violence of Javier Bardem comes from a singular violence. Why? Because that's how it is written in the script.

I guess what I'm saying is that if all you look at is the violence, then maybe take this conversation into something greater than just a few contemporary film makers who use it. But thanks for making me think about it. I could be totally wrong, but you did make me think about it. Thanks again.

 

[Rove!]

how come IFC and Sundance can show stuff unedited and AMC edits the crap out of stuff?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Are we in Inglewood?

 

[The Goat]

"Aw, man, I shot Marvin in the face!"

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

See I don't feel that way. Coen Brother's movies are hit or miss for me and I don't see a lot of consistency. For example... I adore Burn After Reading and that movie got panned both critically and financially IIRC. And there was nothing about Burn After Reading that I thought was similar to No Country for Old Men. Maybe that is the "range" you are discussing. There is a bit of an indy style there, but it most certainly is not uber consistent between Coen brothers movies because they do move around a lot. My reaction to No Country For Old Men was that it was desperately trying to be a Tarantino movie and failed miserably. It had that very raw violence, but for me personally it wasn't successful unless it had some sort of wit or cleverness that accompanied it, which it had none, but I felt it ignorantly thought it had.

I felt like No Country for Old Men was desperately trying to be something it wasn't and it just resulted in an unappealing mess. Sorry.

Burn After Reading is closer to Pulp Fiction than No Country is.

OK? I don't see even the slightest similarity between Pulp Fiction and Burn After Reading, but OK? Maybe I'm completely off-base but I saw No Country For Old Men in the theater when it came out and I felt like it was going for that whole raw violence yet witty and clever storyline (aka Tarantino aka not just Pulp Fiction) and just did a miserable job of it. The actual concept and underlying story was so shallow it didn't require two brain cells to get it after the whole thing was over. Which just left us with a story of raw violence. Some people are into that. I'm not. I guess I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by saying there was some intelligence behind the whole story and the Coen Brothers were going for ironic violence. But that never really came together and Tommy Lee Jones' speech at the end of the movie was freaking cringeworthy. I was embarrassed for him because it was so dramatic in a story that wasn't actually that big of a deal. He was making a whole big deal out of a whole lot of nothing and I felt bad for him because it was embarrassing. The whole movie ended up being a cat-and-mouse thriller with the plot being an afterthought. Actually the end of the movie shoves it in your face that the plot didn't matter and the whole point was this cat-and-mouse game between two characters you've never grown emotionally attached to because they are completely emotionless characters and you don't give a bleep about them.

I'm not knocking your opinion, however I tend to be snobby about movies and a movie such as No Country for Old Men is going to get all my spidey BS senses up as something that is a hot mess because it was a hot mess.

Clever and witty violence isn't a patented Tarantino sub-reality. We grew up with that in cartoons like Tom and Jerry. I get what you're saying, but you're comparing one movie to another with directors who made quite a few of them. What you expect out of a Tarantino movie is ultimately compared to the last Tarantino movie. The Coen Brothers have the same expectation of Tarantino of what's consistent. What makes them different is the scripts, and the influence behind them. Across the board, they both are very consistent at creating films that made small studio's huge, like Miramax.

Your conversation leads more to how they use violence, and they both use it a lot. The Coen Brothers even more - check out the cartoon-ish violence of Raising Arizona.

I think the Coen Brothers effect violence better than Martin Scorcese at this point. Because it's a lot more varied, has a lot more value to the story, still very violent like in Fargo, and Fargo didn't need a lot of violence to show how violent characters can be. There is more violence in script than to actually have to show it. You lead to violence, not play off of it. How do you set danger and the consequence of it? You do it by the danger itself. You don't have to bathe blood or guts.

We didn't see Josh Brolin die at the hands of Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men. What we more shocked at was the collateral damage of lives within that chase. Bardem's motives were cut and dry. You gather a group of sociopaths like in Pulp Fiction, and the results are more predictable due to having to involve a lot of dynamics. You give a sole killer a purpose, and you can write a whole story of one particular sociopath.

The violence of Travis Bickle is greater than the violence of Jules and Vincent. The violence of Travis Bickle comes from his orders in his head. It's singular violence of a character, not the collective violence of Tarantino. The violence of Javier Bardem comes from a singular violence. Why? Because that's how it is written in the script.

I guess what I'm saying is that if all you look at is the violence, then maybe take this conversation into something greater than just a few contemporary film makers who use it. But thanks for making me think about it. I could be totally wrong, but you did make me think about it. Thanks again.

Wasn't the whole Taxi Driver thing merely occurring in Travis Bickle's head and no actual violence took place? Tha is what I got from Taxi Driver. It was all in his head.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Whenever I have a bad day I tthink, Pretty ####### far from ok!

 

[Amused to Death]

Caught a few minutes of this last night on AMC. Only the 2nd time I've seen the expanded scene when Vincent's picking up Mia. "Are you a Beatles man or an Elvis man?" and "Are you related to Suzanne Vega?". Turned it off long before it came up, but the cab scene with Bruce Willis explaining what its like to kill a man is longer too.

 

[Porkchop Express]

QT should stick to directing.

He couldnt decide if he wanted to play Lance or Jimmy, thank god he picked Jimmy. Lance would have been a disaster.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Man, I can't believe it...

Well, believe it now, mutha ####a!

 

[Dark Matter]

Hey, Why am I Mr. Pink?

 

[Teumessian Fox]

Wasn't the whole Taxi Driver thing merely occurring in Travis Bickle's head and no actual violence took place? Tha is what I got from Taxi Driver. It was all in his head.

I took it as only the very end was in his head. The part where he picks up Betsy in his cab. That was him fantasizing that she would realize her mistake in shunning him previously. eta and the letter from Iris's parents was just in his head too.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

how come IFC and Sundance can show stuff unedited and AMC edits the crap out of stuff?

Makes more room for more ads?

Best description of AMC is that they don't cut out scenes, they just let the movie keep playing through the commercials.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Too true. I remember catching some of The Green Mile on AMC once, and right after Coffey cured Paul, it immediately went to the scene where he went home and got frisky with his wife, which means they completely cut out the scene where Paul goes into the men's room and realizes he can now take a leak without it hurting. Tom Hanks' reaction there is so awesome, yet AMC cut that scene out. Terrible.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

how come IFC and Sundance can show stuff unedited and AMC edits the crap out of stuff?

I seem to recall seeing at some point that it all comes down to advertising money. All cable channels have the right and could show as much nudity and cursing as they'd like. If they want to, they can show films completely uncut (like IFC). However, due to the fear of advertisers pulling funds, most cable channels don't do this.

Advertisers are going to give money to the channels with the highest number of viewers. Those channels are going to be the more toned-down.

A good example is Comedy Central, who used to have a shiw called Secret Stash that would cone on at, likeñ 1 AM on Saturday night. They'd show a completely uncut, unedited comedy like Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back. They mightshow the same movue the next day, but completely edited. They have the right to show it uncut, but wouldn't during the day, because people wouldn't watch it uncut during the day, si advertisers wouldn't get thier product seen.

 

[KarmaPolice]

"I gotta stab her three times?"

That's really the only scene in the entire movie I usually fast-forward through.

love that scene, but my fast-forward in through the scene at jimmy's house. he bothers me, and the wolf does nothing for me.

 

[urbanhack]

Pulp Fiction's what?

 

[EYLive]

I watched this on Netflix in HD for the first time in years. Man, I love this movie. Jule's line about about Vincent making the towel look like a maxipad kills me every time.

 

[EYLive]

Yolanda was in the new Hunger Games. I felt very odd about that.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

you realize the coen brothers were putting out movies about a decade before Quentin, right?

also ironic that you are accusing them of parroting a Tarantino movie. he has spent a lot of his career mimicing stuff he loves.

I love Tarantino's dialogue, but I think people give him too much of a pass as a director overall because his movies are cool. he is great with dialogue and getting great performances out of his actors, but I think there are a lot of directors out there who are better behind the camera overall- Coen brothers to name one.

I don't see a comparison between No Country and PF at all.

 

[E Street Brat]

Yolanda was in the new Hunger Games. I felt very odd about that.

correctamundo

 

[drummer]

I actually hated No Country for Old Men too.

*ducks*

I felt like it was such a wannabe Tarantino movie and couldn't drum up the wit or cleverness or uniqueness to be one and it just fell way flat and was pretty freaking boring and just an overtly wannabe Tarantino movie it was sad.

*ducks*

Only Tarantino fans would see this movie that way.

So are you saying you don't feel the style of the movie and what they were going for wasn't very similar to things Tarantino had been doing for over a decade? I felt it was very similar, yet lacked the most important piece of intelligence/wit/humor that makes that style successful.

It's a totally different movie than Pulp Fiction. Coen Brother's dialogue is consistent as Tarantino's, but with much broader range. I just don't see many parallels.

See I don't feel that way. Coen Brother's movies are hit or miss for me and I don't see a lot of consistency. For example... I adore Burn After Reading and that movie got panned both critically and financially IIRC. And there was nothing about Burn After Reading that I thought was similar to No Country for Old Men. Maybe that is the "range" you are discussing. There is a bit of an indy style there, but it most certainly is not uber consistent between Coen brothers movies because they do move around a lot. My reaction to No Country For Old Men was that it was desperately trying to be a Tarantino movie and failed miserably. It had that very raw violence, but for me personally it wasn't successful unless it had some sort of wit or cleverness that accompanied it, which it had none, but I felt it ignorantly thought it had.

I felt like No Country for Old Men was desperately trying to be something it wasn't and it just resulted in an unappealing mess. Sorry.

Burn After Reading is closer to Pulp Fiction than No Country is.

OK? I don't see even the slightest similarity between Pulp Fiction and Burn After Reading, but OK? Maybe I'm completely off-base but I saw No Country For Old Men in the theater when it came out and I felt like it was going for that whole raw violence yet witty and clever storyline (aka Tarantino aka not just Pulp Fiction) and just did a miserable job of it. The actual concept and underlying story was so shallow it didn't require two brain cells to get it after the whole thing was over. Which just left us with a story of raw violence. Some people are into that. I'm not. I guess I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by saying there was some intelligence behind the whole story and the Coen Brothers were going for ironic violence. But that never really came together and Tommy Lee Jones' speech at the end of the movie was freaking cringeworthy. I was embarrassed for him because it was so dramatic in a story that wasn't actually that big of a deal. He was making a whole big deal out of a whole lot of nothing and I felt bad for him because it was embarrassing. The whole movie ended up being a cat-and-mouse thriller with the plot being an afterthought. Actually the end of the movie shoves it in your face that the plot didn't matter and the whole point was this cat-and-mouse game between two characters you've never grown emotionally attached to because they are completely emotionless characters and you don't give a bleep about them.

I'm not knocking your opinion, however I tend to be snobby about movies and a movie such as No Country for Old Men is going to get all my spidey BS senses up as something that is a hot mess because it was a hot mess.

Clever and witty violence isn't a patented Tarantino sub-reality. We grew up with that in cartoons like Tom and Jerry. I get what you're saying, but you're comparing one movie to another with directors who made quite a few of them. What you expect out of a Tarantino movie is ultimately compared to the last Tarantino movie. The Coen Brothers have the same expectation of Tarantino of what's consistent. What makes them different is the scripts, and the influence behind them. Across the board, they both are very consistent at creating films that made small studio's huge, like Miramax.

Your conversation leads more to how they use violence, and they both use it a lot. The Coen Brothers even more - check out the cartoon-ish violence of Raising Arizona.

I think the Coen Brothers effect violence better than Martin Scorcese at this point. Because it's a lot more varied, has a lot more value to the story, still very violent like in Fargo, and Fargo didn't need a lot of violence to show how violent characters can be. There is more violence in script than to actually have to show it. You lead to violence, not play off of it. How do you set danger and the consequence of it? You do it by the danger itself. You don't have to bathe blood or guts.

We didn't see Josh Brolin die at the hands of Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men. What we more shocked at was the collateral damage of lives within that chase. Bardem's motives were cut and dry. You gather a group of sociopaths like in Pulp Fiction, and the results are more predictable due to having to involve a lot of dynamics. You give a sole killer a purpose, and you can write a whole story of one particular sociopath.

The violence of Travis Bickle is greater than the violence of Jules and Vincent. The violence of Travis Bickle comes from his orders in his head. It's singular violence of a character, not the collective violence of Tarantino. The violence of Javier Bardem comes from a singular violence. Why? Because that's how it is written in the script.

I guess what I'm saying is that if all you look at is the violence, then maybe take this conversation into something greater than just a few contemporary film makers who use it. But thanks for making me think about it. I could be totally wrong, but you did make me think about it. Thanks again.

Wasn't the whole Taxi Driver thing merely occurring in Travis Bickle's head and no actual violence took place? Tha is what I got from Taxi Driver. It was all in his head.

It culminated into violence in the end when he saved Iris. But yeah, I felt the violence escalating more in his head.

 

[Wingnut]

Don't ####ing Jimmy me, Jules, okayyy? Dont ####ing Jimmy me.

 

[drummer]

Don't ####ing Jimmy me, Jules, okayyy? Dont ####ing Jimmy me.

 

[dozer]

What about you Peggy Sue?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

My name's Paul, and this is between y'all.

 

[Rick James]

We go out to eat a lot. I think about this movie whenever I come back from the restroom and our food is on the table. Best feeling ever.

 

[Amused to Death]

We go out to eat a lot. I think about this movie whenever I come back from the restroom and our food is on the table. Best feeling ever.

Do you get the $5 shake?

 

[17seconds]

Remains my favorite movie of all time. It's over 2 1/2 hours and there isn't a bad moment. It could have been broken into 3 or 4 other good movies. It's so awesome for a full 2 hours and THEN you get the amazing restaurant scene with Jules and Ringo.