Quentin Tarentino

[klondike]

Following your logic, perhaps we should all post our pictures and vote on who is worthy to post here.

OWWWWTCH!

As a Founding Father here, please record my vote as a resounding NAY !

[movieman1957]

Me too. Why destroy the illusion.

[charliechaplinfan]

Perhaps we should post pictures of our pets instead and let us retain some mystery.

Thank you Stephen for your eloquent and moving post, I guess we've all struggled to express ourselves at one time or other, to read your post is both humbling and insightful. May I always have patience for everyone who crosses my path.

[mrsl]

As an equally original member I agree with the NAY.

I dislike coming back to defend myself but when you put words in my mouth, I get very angry.

I said, " when you're going to be on live with Letterman or O'Brien. That's the judgement I was making. His hair looked like it had not been washed in two weeks,"

I was judging his LOOKS not his WORKS. You challenge me to see his works, but I have, which is why I feel I can put in my opinion, which is, I do not like his work. Unfortunately that goes along with the fact that I do not like the way he looks - but not because of any God given imperfections, because of a seeming laziness to clean up.

To me Uma Thurman is unattractive, to you she may be beautiful. I would never say you're wrong about that, just as I suggested you revisit some of Davis and Hepburn's earlier movies. Pitt has done something to himself, I don't know what but he does not look the same as even a year ago.

For many, many years I have been a movie fan. I have my likes and dislikes in actors, directors, and movies. When I state my feelings, or opinions of them, maybe I'm a little too 'in your face' for you, if so, I'm sorry for that, but I'm too old to change now. If you like looking at a guy with greasy hair hanging in his face, that's your choice, to me it's a slap in the face to his fans. Maybe he was just too busy going to the bank to wash.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I dislike coming back to defend myself but when you put words in my mouth, I get very angry.

No one is putting words in your mouth. I saw your original post which you edited, admitting it was too harsh. I can reprint the comments that remain, but what would be the point? You then became upset because other posters condemned your views, and stated that you felt your opinions were valid. I agreed that you should be able to express your thoughts and tried to explain why others might feel it is unfair to judge a person on their looks or appearance.

I was judging his LOOKS not his WORKS.

Yes, exactly.

You challenge me to see his works, but I have, which is why I feel I can put in my opinion, which is, I do not like his work.

Not me. I never asked you to see anything by him. The only person I recommended a film to was movieman57. You came into a thread that was already two pages with a long-winded rant. I have no problem with criticizing a persons work, but you attacked him personally and have continued to do so.

Unfortunately that goes along with the fact that I do not like the way he looks - but not because of any God given imperfections, because of a seeming laziness to clean up.

I'd say however a person chooses to present themselves, as long as it doesn't break the code of moral decency, is their own business.

To me Uma Thurman is unattractive, to you she may be beautiful. I would never say you're wrong about that, just as I suggested you revisit some of Davis and Hepburn's earlier movies.

Again, you are quoting the wrong person. I did not say this.

When I state my feelings, or opinions of them, maybe I'm a little too 'in your face' for you, if so, I'm sorry for that, but I'm too old to change now.

You are certainly entitled to your own views and opinions. I merely tried to explain why those views and opinions were not well received.

Obviously, you must have felt I was judging you, but I was simply taking your logic to the next step. If you are uncomfortable with this, perhaps you might re-examine your posts.

[srowley75]

is Tarentino your brother, that you have to defend the fact that he doesn't wash his hair?

I suppose it's my mistake for not initially asking you to establish that this is, indeed, a fact. Judging from these recent talk show clips, I must admit I don't know what you're talking about. His hair looks fine to me. Whatever you may see as you watch these clips, he certainly doesn't look as slovenly or unhygienic as you insinuate.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

I have always been under the impression that this was a free thinking board and opinions were permitted whether agreed to or not. I am not a first grader who likes someone because they like some one else as in; "You can't be my friend if you're her friend."

Oh, come on. Free thinking is as free thinking does. If you'd said "I don't like Tarantino's work because graphic violence repels me" or "I don't like his depiction of women" or "His scripts are replete with gratuitous vulgar language," then cited examples to support your claims, everyone here would've understood and, whether he/she agreed or disagreed, would have responded respectfully with their opinions. Claims such as those are certainly worth any open-minded individual's consideration when viewing Tarantino's films and would've probably led to a profitable discussion/debate. That's how these message boards are intended to work.

Instead, you dismissed a director's body of work with statements that amount to "I don't like him because he's unattractive and he employs ugly actors," and some of what you said was scathingly derisive:

Uma Thurman has got to be the plainest, least attractive female ever to 'grace' a movie screen. Naturally if you look at Tarantino, you can understand why none of his actors believe in washing their hair, and prefer the greasy dirty kids' look. He doesn't need pyro-technics in his movies, or CGI, just looking at his actors can give nightmares.

No one here would deny you the right to express an opinion, but you seem to have this habit of using such incendiary language that it's as though you're aiming to be as offensive as possible.

[ChiO]

you seem to have this habit of using such incendiary language that it's as though you're aiming to be as offensive as possible.

I have no problem with incendiary language and -- I guessing here -- you (srowley) don't either. It can be thought provoking and lead to a deeper understanding of the art of movies.

It is the negative comments regarding one's personal physical appearance or presumed habits of hygiene (I saw no problems with Tarantino in srowley's clips (my family wishes my hair were that well coiffed) -- though, perhaps, some nice khaki Dockers and a light blue buttoned-down shirt would have made me feel at-one with him) that lead to the conclusion that Tarantino cannot be an cinematic artist that is the point of contention.

Tangent -- The whole notion that physical appearance is of utmost (or, of any) importance, and then decrying the celebrity worship in society -- which is a frequent topic on SSO -- is a fascinating phenomenon.

One more vent -- To introduce a post as self-deprecating ("I preface my post with 'I'll be the crank', or something similar") is not a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Goodness knows, I love a crank (luckily, so do my wife and kids). But cruelty -- or "crankiness" -- disguised as "Well, it's only my opinion" makes it no less cruel.

I must go see INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Tarantino's films scare (more in the anticipation than the execution) the beejeebers out of me. I love PULP FICTION. I really like RESERVOIR DOGS (yeah, Timothy Carey would have made it better). That's all I've seen. The fear of the bloodletting is a problem for me (I'm a weenie at heart). But now I have to see this one.

[klondike]

The fear of the bloodletting is a problem for me (I'm a weenie at heart). But now I have to see this one.

Yes, you do . . and for all the right reasons!
Inglourious Basterds is significantly less bloody than Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates, with considerably less obscenity and violence (to step outside the genre briefly) than Eastwood's Unforgiven.

[Mr. Arkadin]

[ I love PULP FICTION. I really like RESERVOIR DOGS (yeah, Timothy Carey would have made it better). That's all I've seen. The fear of the bloodletting is a problem for me (I'm a weenie at heart). But now I have to see this one.

What?! No Jackie Brown?

[youtube][/youtube]

[ChiO]

P.S. Oooo, Mr. Ark, you've made me soooo angry!!!

but to use your standard, John Ford and Nicholas Ray would be a couple of cyclops

What? Andre de Toth -- Mr. HOUSE OF WAX -- doesn't meet your elitist standards? I suppose the monocles of Erich Von Stroheim and Fritz Lang don't count?

I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Mrs. Ford (maybe she looked like Ward Bond or Walter Brennan. I don't know. I'm just sayin'. Or, in the parlance, IMH(uninformed)O). But, given that de Toth was married to Veronica Lake, and Ray was married to Gloria Grahame, maybe the next debate topic should be:

Resolved: Directors Cyclopses (or, is it Cyclopsi? "i". "eye". Get it?) get all the hot chick actresses.

And, please, stay on topic.

[Ollie]

MrsL, your lack of reading comprehension continues to make your posts worthy only of IGNOREs. From MY post, I clearly wrote - in English - the following:

"...And I certainly hope readers know what THE ONION is all about."

I am not assuming anything of you - and certainly shouldn't - if "reading comprehension" would be a factor. HOPE is not the same as presume or assume, but The Onion exists for anyone interested in reading it, and I'd think ALMOST ANYONE can figure it out. Only one person might have difficulties, it's now clear.

[Mr. Arkadin]

P.S. Oooo, Mr. Ark, you've made me soooo angry!!!

but to use your standard, John Ford and Nicholas Ray would be a couple of cyclops

What? Andre de Toth -- Mr. HOUSE OF WAX -- doesn't meet your elitist standards? I suppose the monocles of Erich Von Stroheim and Fritz Lang don't count?

I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Mrs. Ford (maybe she looked like Ward Bond or Walter Brennan. I don't know. I'm just sayin'. Or, in the parlance, IMH(uninformed)O). But, given that de Toth was married to Veronica Lake, and Ray was married to Gloria Grahame, maybe the next debate topic should be:

Resolved: Directors Cyclopses (or, is it Cyclopsi? "i". "eye". Get it?) get all the hot chick actresses.

And, please, stay on topic.

Well, I don't really keep a list on all the visually challenged directors, but we make lists on just about everything else don't we? Do they get the girls? That's an interesting question. I'm not really eager to poke my eye with a sharp pencil to find out though.

As for Cyclops in a plural sense, you'll have to forgive me as I've personally never met one, let alone two of them (never seen two of them in the same film either). I muddled through as best I could.

Yes, you should see Jackie Brown. If I like it, you know you'll love it.

[srowley75]

I have no problem with incendiary language and -- I'm guessing here -- you (srowley) don't either.

I guess my closing comments were too vague. From where I was standing in my earlier post, yes, I've become weary of it. I was remembering the Golden Globes discussion from earlier this year, the "voyeurism in cinema" thread, and now all this. It's as though each time, out comes the hatchet, and to what end I really haven't a clue, though in each case the (misinformed) thrust seems to be that civilization and culture are going to hell in a handbasket thanks to these greaseballs, perverts, and drunks of today. Then indignation all around. So it goes.

But having given it all further thought, I suppose in this situation, no, I shouldn't have a problem with anyone using whatever language he or she feels necessary. At least it leaves no room for doubt or spin.

-Stephen

[mrsl]

I've come to a conclusion considering I've had a few other similar arguments before. Apparently I have a problem articulating properly when offering my opposing thoughts. Then I compound the mistake by continuing to say more inappropriate things when trying an attempt at explaining my meaning.

I like to preface my opposition with certain statements so the reader can just ignore it and go on to the next. I don't mean it as an escape clause by any means.

Pulp Fiction was just a turn off for me although normally I like a story within a story (like Four Weddings and a Funeral), although the subject matter was entirely different, and after the first couple of kills, I got tired of 'the bride' and her quest [(which is why I saw Kill Bill (1) and not (2)]. So as it stands, I am not a fan of Quentin Tarentino or his work, for reasons I will forevermore keep to myself.

As a conclusion, when I want to give a negative opinion, I will bite my tongue and go on to the next thread. But seriously, what started this whole thing - What is the Onion, a magazine, or newspaper perhaps?

[movieman1957]

Anne:

"The Onion" is a satirical news website. It is designed to look like a legitimate news site with videos and commentary and such but it is satire. It is often crude but it is nearly always hilarious.