Look at me! I'm an artiste!

[schild]

Pulp Fiction.

Throw enough shit at the wall and something's gotta stick. I think that's Samuel L. Jackson's credo also. Truly, a match made in heaven.

[WindupAtheist]

Grindhouse was Tarantino and Rodriguez making movies for each other that only they wanted to see, while the public stood there mystified.  The whole marketing pitch basically consisted of "Hey public, remember grindhouses?  Weren't they gre...  No?  Well a grindhouse was a movie theater which showed low-budget exploi...  No, it looks shitty, but that's irony!  Wait, let me finish explaining!"  Unsurprisingly it was a gigantic money-losing flop.

Kill Bill was just Tarantino crawling up his own asshole doing whatever silly thing he wanted because no one would say no to him.  Absurdly long fight scenes that eventually became so monotonous that it was like watching someone else play a videogame, random bits in cartoon, blood geysers that would make Sam Raimi go "Come on, that's unrealistic!" and so forth.  Unfortunately both "volumes" turned a healthy profit, which was just about the worst thing that could ever happen in terms of his chances of ever making anything watchable ever again.

[Grand Design]

David Lynch to Produce Werner Herzog film.


I got all excited reading that, but I'm an artiste. 

[stu]

I went out to see Herzog's Rescue Dawn last year (awesome, awesome title btw). Not the best Prisoner of War flick I've ever seen, but it was cool- especially the opening shot.

[Grand Design]

I watched Rescue Dawn first and then Little Dieter Needs to Fly to hear the story from Dengler himself.  Herzog directed the documentary before he made the film with Bale, and shortly before Dengler died.  Seeing what that experience did to the man in his later life is amazing.  Rescue Dawn may not be the best POW film, but it is the truest and also the only escape from a VC prison camp, to my knowledge.  Highly recommended, both.

[Margalis]

Where does your girl dialogue come from?

This is gonna sound like a smartass answer, but I have to say, it's obvious, but it so needs to be said. I'm a good writer. It's what I'm supposed to be able to do. It needs to be said. It's not like I overheard some friends. It's my job to be interested in other people's humanity and not just write about myself.

Oh God how can you be any less self-aware. Tarantino writes every damn character to be himself!

I enjoyed the Grindhouse experience but when I watched Planet Terror seperately it didn't hold up at all. Instead of a fun B-movie it's an A movie trying to ape a B-movie. (By comparison I watched Machine Girl the week before, similar film, much better)

Given that I enjoyed Planet Terror more in the theater I have zero desire to ever watch Death Proof again.

[NowhereMan]

I've seen Planet Terror, not Death Proof (they separated the two out for release over here, or at least the place I went to didn't show them together). It was seriously ass and just made me think someone was trying to do Evil Dead 3 while screaming at the whole audience, "Lol see, it's so bad that it's a fucking awesome experience!!!1!!" I enjoy 'so bad they're good movies' and I seriously thought a movie where a chick gets a rifle for a false leg couldn't be too bad but, fuck. One of the few movies I really just wanted to walk out of because I didn't even find it very entertaining. However I'm also one of these people who feels the need to see something all the way through in the vague hope it gets better. I hope to grow out of this soon enough.

[Endie]

However I'm also one of these people who feels the need to see something all the way through in the vague hope it gets better. I hope to grow out of this soon enough.

I walked out of The Avengers about 25 minutes in, having thought "I've already paid cash for the next 90 minutes, no need to also be miserable".  It was curiously liberating, and the friends I was with were (in the main) very jealous afterwards.  Since then, I've been in a walking-out frenzy.  It's best at the theatre, where you meet interesting people of a like mind in the bar.

[Margalis]

The Avengers TV show is great. Phenomenal and Emma Peele in a black catsuit...yikes.

It was seriously ass and just made me think someone was trying to do Evil Dead 3 while screaming at the whole audience, "Lol see, it's so bad that it's a fucking awesome experience!!!1!!"

Yeah. I wasn't a huge fan of Evil Dead 3 either now that you mention it. (Evil Dead 2 however...)

Planet Terror was just played wrong. It wasn't bad by accident, and earnest attempt to make a good movie that went horribly wrong. Nor was it played so silly that it was enjoyable camp. Sure it was bad and silly but a movie about a chick with a grenade launcher on her leg could have been a lot sillier. Some of it like the testicle-collecting was just dumb.

The best part were the score bits they took from Escape from New York. In a lot of ways Robert Rodriguez is like John Carpenter, he directs, writes, scores and cuts his movies, he has a lot of say in the final product, he looks for alternate financing and tries to avoid studio meddling. A lot of his sensibilities are pretty similar as well. (I believe Rodriquez is a fan of Carpenter, I know they've been paired together at an SXSW event) But he is lacking something -- too self-aware, too much style over substance, too little heart and authenticity.

The only RR movie I really like is From Dusk Till Dawn, but even that has major issues that I simply choose to ignore. Probably the main thing I like about it is how ballsy it is to totally change into a different film halfway through and how crazy and stupid it becomes.

[HaemishM]

The only RR movie I really like is From Dusk Till Dawn, but even that has major issues that I simply choose to ignore. Probably the main thing I like about it is how ballsy it is to totally change into a different film halfway through and how crazy and stupid it becomes.

That's because the first half is directed by Tarantino... the second half (when the vamps come out) is directed by Rodriguez.

[NowhereMan]

I watched John Carpenter's Vampires last night and I've got to say that I really saw Carpenter's influence from Planet Terror. At the same time it was like he saw Carpenter and just thought what made it good was non CG specials effects and cliched plots, therefore the key was to put both those elements up to 11 and sit back to watch teh awsum unfold. I seriously think that is how that movie gets explained, it's like watching Terminator 2 and deciding that the way to make a great film is sunglasses and catchphrases to the Max!

[Engels]

The book, Vampire$, by John Steakly is worth reading, if you liked the movie. All props to John Carpenter for even trying to adapt the book, but the book has so much more win in it its not even funny. Also worth checking out is Steakly's book 'Armor'

[Selby]

I enjoyed the Grindhouse experience but when I watched Planet Terror seperately it didn't hold up at all. Instead of a fun B-movie it's an A movie trying to ape a B-movie.

I must agree here.  The experience as a whole was fun.  Each movie separately was... okay.  Not great, but just okay.  I enjoyed the concept but it probably would have worked better with a lower budget for both movies rather than as much as they spent.  Death Proof did a good job of appearing to be a B movie, but it still had a bit too much to it to truly be as bad as they were going for while Planet Terror was very slick despite intentionally missing chunks.

[MahrinSkel]

The book, Vampire$, by John Steakly is worth reading, if you liked the movie. All props to John Carpenter for even trying to adapt the book, but the book has so much more win in it its not even funny. Also worth checking out is Steakly's book 'Armor'

Armor is really a "Must Read" for sci-fi fans.  Your impression from reading the blurbs will be that it's a Starship Troopers knockoff, complete with hordes of bugs.  But where Starship Troopers was a retelling of a very old plot (feckless youth becomes warrior), Armor is completely different, about how war as the pilot of a machine dehumanizes you even when the enemy is completely unhuman (I was referred to it by a crewman on a AC130 gunship).  I am a big Heinlein fan, but Armor is a much better story than Starship Troopers.

--Dave

[Margalis]

I watched John Carpenter's Vampires last night and I've got to say that I really saw Carpenter's influence from Planet Terror. At the same time it was like he saw Carpenter and just thought what made it good was non CG specials effects and cliched plots, therefore the key was to put both those elements up to 11 and sit back to watch teh awsum unfold. I seriously think that is how that movie gets explained, it's like watching Terminator 2 and deciding that the way to make a great film is sunglasses and catchphrases to the Max!

This was evident to me when I saw the clip of Carpenter and RR together at a SXSW event. RR was talking about how shooting digitally is so easy and Carpenter was saying that digital shooting doesn't have the same color depth, therefore he wasn't interested. For RR it was all about ease and convenience and being good enough, but for Carpenter it was about delivering the best possible experience to the audience.

A lot of Carpenter movies you watch when you are young and they are flat out entertaining, but then you watch them when you're older and they have some real depth to them. For example Big Trouble is a great movie to just watch as a kid, I remember watching it every time it was on and thinking how cool it was when Russel's character killed Lo Pan.

But now that I'm older I can also recognize how the movie breaks so many boundries. Russel is not really the hero, he runs around wearing lipstick, in the end he doesn't get with the girl or even kiss her -- it's a bold script and a bold performance to play second fiddle to the small Asian dude. As an adult I can still appreciate the obvious fun but also how unique the vision is.

I don't see RR movies as anything other than cool dumb fun.

[HaemishM]

While I like most of RR's movies, his greatest accomplishment as a director is in the process, not the end result. He doesn't really make art as it were, but his technical process is an art in itself. Making a movie like Spy Kids on the budgets he manages is a skill most Hollywood directors couldn't manage. He's still got chops now... go back to the bus scene in the original El Mariachi (realizing that was done in one take and with mostly amateur stuntmen and performers) and you'll see the motherfucker knows how to direct. But I don't think you'll ever look at Once Upon a Time in Mexico and put it up next to any of the great directors of our time.

[stray]

What he needs is a really great writer, like Scorsese has had. I mean, he had that in Frank Miller, but I mean a traditional writer for film. I don't know why he doesn't do this. It's not like he's the auteur type anyways.

[edit] Uh, I only mention Scorsese because he was good on a shoestring budget back in his day too.

[Engels]

Its sorta apples and organges, tho. Although RR and Carpenter sometimes share the same theme, the artistic perspective is radically different. Carpenter is very very visually oriented. He tells half the story by the way the screen pans across the landscape/set in the first 30 seconds. RR does that too, but his genius to me seems to be to capture people's personalities and motives nearly instantly. Carpenter has his share of that, but that's RR's forte. Both are underappreciated amidst the Snow Falling on my Gilded Cedar Bollocks type films.

[DraconianOne]

For RR it was all about ease and convenience and being good enough, but for Carpenter it was about delivering the best possible experience to the audience.

And one sentence you've damned a whole gamut of filmmakers who arguably are better filmmakers than Carpenter, just because they chose to shoot on digital including Steven Soderbergh, Tony Scott, Mel Gibson, Bryan Singer, Sidney Lumet and Doug Liman.

Well done.

[Margalis]

Well sorry but it's true. Digital is much more convenient but at this point doesn't look as good.

[justdave]

For RR it was all about ease and convenience and being good enough, but for Carpenter it was about delivering the best possible experience to the audience.

And one sentence you've damned a whole gamut of filmmakers who arguably are better filmmakers than Carpenter, just because they chose to shoot on digital including Steven Soderbergh, Tony Scott, Mel Gibson, Bryan Singer, Sidney Lumet and Doug Liman.

Well done.

Jesus, that's so scattershot, it's crazy.

[stray]

You forgot to mention Lucas.

[DraconianOne]

You forgot to mention Lucas.

They're people "who are arguably better filmmakers than Carpenter".

Jesus, that's so scattershot, it's crazy.

I don't follow.

[stray]

Green text.

[DraconianOne]

Green text.

Bah!

It's early. I'm only on my second coffee.

[justdave]

Jesus, that's so scattershot, it's crazy.

I don't follow.

Tell me you didn't just group the guy who directed The Limey with the guy who directed Apocalypto. That's like sticking together Hitchcock and M. Night Shamalamadingdong to make a point about director cameos. 

EDIT: Also, as the point Margalis was making, I don't think it was so much the digital as it was the intent behind using it, and that it backed up RR delivering a certain depth of end product...At least that's my take.

As a counterexample, I wouldn't ding Soderbergh for Traffic, since you could argue that he knew he was going to grade the fuck out of the movie to put a subtle separation between the four storylines. It's not about the what, more the why.

EDIT: Okay, learned to read. I guess he WAS saying digital sucks. 

[stray]

Actually, Shylamadingdong is a cool actor IMO. He was in that Lady in the Water flick at least (or whatever it's called).

[justdave]

Actually, Shylamadingdong is a cool actor IMO. He was in that Lady in the Water flick at least (or whatever it's called).

Man, that was the one that put me off my feed. His cameo in Sixth Sense was kind of charming, since I didn't know who he was, and after finding out I was rewatching it and spotted him and it was kind of neat. The one in Signs was where it started to get over the top, for me. But, I don't disagree he's an okay actor, so it was watchable. Though a little that he just stopped by to deliver a major plot point. That's okay, that fit the general thrust of the movie.

Lady in the water?

"So, M, who are you playing in this one?"

"I shall play...Jesus. For the entire film."

 

[stray]

I just liked his cocky attitude in it.

Granted, he's no bearded psycho Scoresese in Taxi Driver though. 

[justdave]

God, I forgot all about that one!

[HaemishM]

Actually, Shylamadingdong is a cool actor IMO. He was in that Lady in the Water flick at least (or whatever it's called).

He was also pretty fucking awful in that movie, which was awful in its own right. He's not a good actor. The fact that the story made the director's character so important just made the shitty movie even worse.

[Evildrider]

What people aren't sick of his one-trick pony movies yet?

The only movie of his that is watchable for me is Unbreakable.

[stray]

Pretty fucking awful eh? A bit dramatic, I say.  Is there nothing that you guys don't just simply "dislike"? Or simply "like", for that matter? Tastes here tend to be very bi-polar. 

[HaemishM]

Look, there are a number of movies that I think are ok. But /meh feelings don't generally warrant a response, you just watch the movie and set it aside. Elizabeth: The Golden Age was a meh film. I liked it well enough, but it paled in comparison to the first one. Not terrible, but not great.

Lady in the Water, though? That movie was fucking awful. I felt sorry for Paul Giamatti. It was like a Choose Your Own Adventure book married with young adult fiction and had a fan fiction self-aggrandizement baby. It was just fucking terrible, and the director stroking himself by being the writer of the humanity saving book was just directorial bukkake. It made me finally realize that Shamalamadingdong truly needs to just stop making movies.

[DraconianOne]

Tell me you didn't just group the guy who directed The Limey with the guy who directed Apocalypto. That's like sticking together Hitchcock and M. Night Shamalamadingdong to make a point about director cameos. 

EDIT: Also, as the point Margalis was making, I don't think it was so much the digital as it was the intent behind using it, and that it backed up RR delivering a certain depth of end product...At least that's my take.

As a counterexample, I wouldn't ding Soderbergh for Traffic, since you could argue that he knew he was going to grade the fuck out of the movie to put a subtle separation between the four storylines. It's not about the what, more the why.

EDIT: Okay, learned to read. I guess he WAS saying digital sucks. 

Yes, you read right.  I did lump in Soderbergh with Gibson. Why? Because they are directors who care very much about the visuals.  Soderbergh is a total digital convert these days. Whether or not you liked Apocalypto as a film, the cinematography is unquestionably stunning. Shot on digital.  Superman Returns had rubbish story and appalling acting but visually was pretty impressive. Shot on digital.  

Do you think 95% of the cinema going audience are going to tell the difference between a movie that was shot on 35mm and one shot on digital? Do you think they could tell the which parts of Jumper were filmed on a standard Panavision film camera and which scenes were shot on a Red One?  I'm not going to say that digital is as good as film because that would be patently false and easily disproved.  There's still a little way to go yet. The next generation of Red cameras are getting there and are meant to be able to shoot in resolutions that are comparable with standard 35mm but will still suffer in some other areas - particularly high speed shooting.

What I find absurd about this is that the discussion came about because it's John Carpenter who's being held up as the paradigm of director's desire to "deliver the best possible experience to the audience". Really? How does that explain Village of the Damned or Ghosts From Mars or Escape from L.A.? Won't shoot on digital but is happy to have second rate makeup effects on Vampires? I like most of his films up to In the Mouth of Madness (and yeah, Vampires was watchable) but you can't convince me that any of his films would suffer from being shot on a Panavision Genesis. He's not exactly Bertolucci or David Lean is he?