I always read. But I don't always have a comment, particularly as some of the stuff you talk about sometimes seems a bit too arts-intellectual for me -- makes me realise I have very straight/simple/narrow tastes. Action films though, hell yeah
( ... )
some of the stuff you talk about sometimes seems a bit too arts-intellectual
Haha, oops. I don't *feel* terribly arts-intellectual, and when I do write something on that level I do feel a big old case of imposter syndrome sitting on my shoulder. At least I know what to do next now; lower the bar! A critical appraisal of Jackass, perhaps? :)
How do you classify Tarantino's stuff?There's only one way to classify Tarantino's stuff; by film
( ... )
Hehe, no. Don't change your style or fiddle with bars -- I sometimes learn something, plus others in your audience are just able to appreciate certain things more (and you never come across as pretentious, FYI). In truth I'm a little envious of your eclecticism, while also being too lazy to raise the bar for myself
( ... )
It can be useful to know if I'm swinging too much one way or the other, and so need to course-correct somewhat. But in general, no need to worry about me changing style; there might be elements I can adjust somewhat, but ultimately, I can't help but be myself. Eclecticism is a nice way of putting it, I like that. Much better than "Jack of all trades, master of none." :)
Reservoir Dogs I've seen more than any other Tarantino movie; at least three times, probably four. And I've seen City on Fire twice on top of that. In certain respects it's my favourite Tarantino film because it's the purest, if that makes sense. (BTW, if you only catch up with one of the sources, make it City on Fire.) After than, perhaps Death Proof. If there's a connection there it's probably that one was made cheap and one was made to look as if it was made on the cheap. Make of that what you will.
Ant is[...] not so keen on Tarantino putting himself in his filmsI think I read somewhere that Tarantino originally intended to cast himself in the Brad Pitt role in
( ... )
I've only seen one Fast and the Furious film. And I spent 90% of my time watching it being massively freaked out that the lead character was played by the kid (n.b. now no longer a kid) who played Caleb in American Gothic. He was all grown up! He didn't look right!
Comments 36
Reply
Reply
Reply
Haha, oops. I don't *feel* terribly arts-intellectual, and when I do write something on that level I do feel a big old case of imposter syndrome sitting on my shoulder. At least I know what to do next now; lower the bar! A critical appraisal of Jackass, perhaps? :)
How do you classify Tarantino's stuff?There's only one way to classify Tarantino's stuff; by film ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reservoir Dogs I've seen more than any other Tarantino movie; at least three times, probably four. And I've seen City on Fire twice on top of that. In certain respects it's my favourite Tarantino film because it's the purest, if that makes sense. (BTW, if you only catch up with one of the sources, make it City on Fire.) After than, perhaps Death Proof. If there's a connection there it's probably that one was made cheap and one was made to look as if it was made on the cheap. Make of that what you will.
Ant is[...] not so keen on Tarantino putting himself in his filmsI think I read somewhere that Tarantino originally intended to cast himself in the Brad Pitt role in ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment