Tarantino Poll

whenever im talking to someone about a beloved washed up actor i usually throw in a plea to tarantino to try and revive their career (c'mon bro, you know you can find a part for cynthia rothrock)

like I said, all those movies are terrible. some more terrible than others.

I could imagine Tom Cruise subbing in for Travolta in Face/Off with no detriment to the movie, but this is not so for Pulp Fiction.

Pam Grier sure went places, didn't she.

also feel like "tarantino revives another aging actor's career" has been something that's followed him at least up until IB

more like "tarantino plucks another fallen actor briefly out of obscurity"

well there's just SO MANY roles in Hollywood for aging black women, I'm sure she's had a hard time choosing.

xp

half of those are at least decent and several of them are v dope

robert forster has quietly done pretty well for himself. diamond men was a good film with a great, great performance from him.

yeah Travolta's career surged where others have failed because a) he will be in absolutely ANYTHING, and he will do it with gusto and b) he has Scientology behind him

more like "tarantino plucks another fallen actor briefly out of obscurity"

― if nothing else this thread will result in some great display names (Edward III), Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:01 PM (24 seconds ago) Bookmark

well yeah

broken arrow owns

half of those are at least decent and several of them are v dope

I guess I will just ignore your film opinions from here on out

i remember liking a civil action too

broken arrow owns

^^ one of the last times a major Hollywood actor chain smokes on film.

i had no idea mad city was directed by costa-gavras O_O

Erin Brockovich >>>>>>>>>>>>> A Civil Action

robert forster before jackie brown = maniac cop 3
robert forster after jackie brown = dragon wars: d-war

robert forster's part in mulholland drive is so weird, you think he's going to be a big character and then you never see him again (because of the pilot into feature metamorphosis i guess)

actually if you look at the 3 films travolta made before PF and the 3 he made after, well, it tells the whole story

and by "look" I don't mean watch, look at 'em on imdb or sumthin, you'll go blind

Travolta's gusto (Shakey otm) earned him most of his good will. Shortly after PF, The New Yorker ran a Travolta profile, in which he made it very clear that he almost rejected the scripts for Get Shorty and PF and he didn't give a damn about starring in the next Look Who's Talking movie ("where, like, the CHAIRS talk"). The guy has no shame, which is very refreshing.

I guess I will just ignore your film opinions from here on out

― from the lowly milligeir to the mighty gigahongro (Shakey Mo Collier)

face/off, get shorty, and the thin red line are dope, i don't think that's a challop?

Look Who's Talking Now (1993)
In this, the third film, it's the pets who do the talking. The Ubriacco's find themselves the owners of two dogs, Rocks, a street wise cross breed, and Daphne, a spoilled pedegree poodle. James has a new job, pilot to the sexy and lonely Samantha. Mollie's just lost hers and is stuck at home.

forget it, omar... its shakeytown

http://img.movieberry.com/static/photos/63472/5_midi.jpg

Shout (1991)
A new music teacher (John Travolta) in a 1955 West Texas home for wayward boys brings new vision and hope for many of the interned boys.

Eyes of an Angel (1991)
John Travolta is a downtrodden single father raising his daughter under difficult circumstances in Chicago. The young girl comes upon and then nurses a wounded Doberman used for fighting, back to health. Duped by underworld types he was working as a courier for, father and daughter leave the dog and flee cross-country to Los Angeles with both canine and mobsters in pursuit.

Shout (1991)
A new music teacher (John Travolta) in a 1955 West Texas home for wayward boys brings new vision and hope for many of the interned boys.

^^^^ actually saw this in the theatre. I was straight at the time.

btw all these movies were mid nineties Blockbuster staples after PF took off. I would walk past the sixteen boxes of Eyes of an Angel.

I guess it was a powerful film what with all those interned boys

xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgWgTMcc6L4

how is it easy to forget?! after this Jackie Brown the dude flooded the market with one unbelievably shitty movie after another!

settle down morbs or we'll strap you down and make you watch chains of gold

alex de large style

put the lime in the coconut and drink em both up

http://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Entertainment/Tarantino-Israeli-thriller-iBig-Bad-Wolvesi-is-the-best-film-of-the-year-328545

"That's the beauty of it--we got places all over the place." Kills me every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n58V36ABwJY

The lowest of low-hanging fruit.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2019/07/02/quentin-tarantino-renews-threat-to-retire-from-filmmaking

everyone is p good in Jackie Brown but they all feel like they're Acting. except Robert Forester who seems like he's a bit annoyed that he's being taken away from his bail bonds work to do a movie.

love the sound of Michael Keaton's jacket

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/cinema-speculation-quentin-tarantino?variant=40461820756002

Quentin needs to make another 90 minute movie.

Finished Cinema Speculation. I've posted about many of the book's strengths (the films) and weaknesses (a lot of the writing) across other threads, but the last chapter, about his friendship with his mother's friend Floyd, is really something. It's technically a 20-page footnote; when Floyd is mentioned earlier in the book, there's an asterisk beside his name but no accompanying footnote at the bottom of the page.

A lot there. Tarantino lands on one side of a topic, based on Floyd's comedic heroes, that is so out of sync with the moment we live in, I'm surprised I haven't encountered push-back. (Maybe it's out there, or maybe no one's bothering with the book enough to care.) Between that, a platform for Tarantino to say some stuff he wants to say, and the perfect sentimental ending to the book--which I did find moving--a small part of me wonders if Floyd isn't a fictional creation. Just a passing thought; I'm sure he was a real guy.

Didn't realize that Richard Brody had reviewed the book; I was able to read it going incognito.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/quentin-tarantinos-cinema-speculation-is-an-obsessive-insiders-view-of-hollywood

He liked the book a lot, more than I did.

Marcus has an entry on the book in Real Life this month:

Quentin Tarantino, Cinema Speculation (Harper). On how lots of 1970s movies (Bullitt, The Getaway) could have turned out differently--so and so wanted a different director, a different actor, but this accident and that rights dispute got in the way but what if? At first it’s kind of interesting, in a They-wanted-Ronald-Reagan-for-the-lead-in-Casablanca way. And then it’s a big so what and you wonder why you read right up to the chapter on Hardcore.

Except for the what-if-De Palma-had-directed-Taxi-Driver chapter, I really didn't find the book all that speculative. And the interest level, for me, was pretty steady throughout.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/quentin-tarantino-sets-the-movie-critic-final-movie-1235351260/

Logline details are being kept in a suitcase but sources describe the story as being set in late 1970s Los Angeles with a female lead at its center

It is possible the story focuses on Pauline Kael, one of the most influential movie critics of all time. Kael, who died in 2001, was not just a critic but also an essayist and novelist. She was known for her pugnacious fights with editors as well as filmmakers. In the late 1970s, Kael had a very brief tenure working as a consultant for Paramount, a position she accepted at the behest of actor Warren Beatty. The timing of that Paramount job seems to coincide with the setting of the script — and the filmmaker is known to have a deep respect for Kael, making the odds of her being the subject of the film more likely.

Just watched Pulp Fiction again last week with my 19 year old son. It's an immaculately scripted film and a shitload of fun.

no Star Trek film?

Ha! I've been saying here and elsewhere for the past few years that Kael's life could make a great fictionalized film. Hopefully it's not about this one guy he ridicules three or four times in his book--really nasty stuff--and towards whom he obviously still bears a major grudge.

Kael's gonna kill that guy on-screen, I guarantee it.