Iconic or laughable?

I was told by a certain Tarantino fan that this is an iconic action scene from the film Kill Bill Vol 1.But after watching it,I feel people should stop criticizing salman-akshay films or rather all south Indian remakes.It is so badly over the top and gross ,it is almost hilarious.Whats with the blood flowing like fountains and Uma Thurman flying in the air?Her body language is pedestrian to say the least.She cannot even move her legs fluently.And who was foolish enough to give the legendary Katana in her hands? This looks same as Parineeti holding the pistol like a belan in Ishaqzaade!It is an insult to the great katana.I guess this is iconic the same way bw hypes the stupid Gadar hand-pump scene as iconic.Both are jokes.I hope this is not the Tarantino that is praised.I am hearing his pulp fiction is far more realistic and better.Hopefully.

Tags:
130 Comments
  1. fearlesssoul 7 years ago

    Baba watch kumfu hustle climax fight which is much better ott/gross but extremly funny n entertaining movie unlike kill bill..

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      ok fs – but i hope its a comedy film.nothing serious.

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      The first time I tried to watch Kung Fu Hustle I stopped watching after 15 minutes. I did not like it. Then I watched the movie along with my friends and loved it. It was very funny and entertaining.

      • fearlesssoul 7 years ago

        the climax action – couldn’t stop laughing but it was well picturised… i like shaolin soccer but most don’t like it.. i find that funny and entertaining tooo but obviously it is OTT/Gross

  2. sputnik 7 years ago

    @Baba,

    I saw Kill Bill part 1 in theater and I did not like the movie either. It was too long for me and there was a long animation scene which I hated. But I still liked some of the fights.

    There is lot of difference between stupid masala movies and a movie where the scenes are done as a tribute. Quentin Tarantino always does scenes which are done as tribute/homage. Only people who have seen those movies will get that. Now don’t post scenes from his movie Grindhouse and say it is a B-grade movie for that movie was based on B-grade movies.

    “The overall storyline of Kill Bill is adapted from Lady Snowblood, a 1973 Japanese film in which a woman kills off the gang who murdered her family. The Guardian commented that Lady Snowblood was “practically a template for the whole of Kill Bill Vol. 1”.[2] Lady Snowblood was adapted from the manga of the same name written by Kazuo Koike and illustrated by Kazuo Kamimura.

    It references the TV show Yagyû ichizoku no inbô (Japanese > “Intrigue of the Yagyu Clan”) by quoting a variant of the speech in the show’s opening sequence.

    Jubei Yagyu (Sonny Chiba) [The Yagyu Conspiracy]: “The Secret Doctrine of Ura Yagyu (“Hidden Yagyu”) states: ‘Once engaged in battle, fight to win. That is the first and cardinal rule of battle. Suppress all human emotions and compassion. Kill whosoever stands in thy way, even if that be a God or Buddha. Only then can one master the essence of the art. Once it is mastered, thou shall fear no one, though even devils block thy way.'”
    Hattori Hanzo XV (Sonny Chiba) [Kill Bill]: “For those regarded as warriors, when engaged in combat the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior’s only concern. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God or Buddha himself. This truth lies at the heart of the art of combat.”

    The film also references Samurai Reincarnation (1981) by quoting its iconic line: “If you encounter God, God will be cut”. Hattori Hanzō is modelled on legendary swordmaker Muramasa. The character is also a reference to the Japanese television show Kage no Gundan (Shadow Warriors in America), in which Sonny Chiba portrayed a fictionalized version of Hattori Hanzō, as well as his descendants in later seasons. Tarantino, in Vol. 1 special features, claims that his film’s Hanzō is one of those descendants.

    Kill Bill pays tribute to film genres including the spaghetti western, blaxploitation, Chinese wuxia, Japanese yakuza films, Japanese samurai cinema, and kung fu movies of the 1960s and 1970s. This last genre, which was largely produced by the Shaw Brothers, is given an obvious nod by the inclusion of the Shaw Scope logo at the beginning of Kill Bill Vol. 1.

    One influential exploitation film that Tarantino has mentioned in interviews is the Swedish Thriller – A Cruel Picture, released in the U.S. as They Call Her One Eye. Tarantino, who has called Thriller “the roughest revenge movie ever made”,[3] recommended that actress Daryl Hannah watch the film to prepare for her role as the one-eyed killer Elle Driver.[4]”

    From wikipedia

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      ok so tarantino made this under the excuse of “tribute/homage”.same way farah/sajid give excuses for making films akin to 80s crap saying its homage.

      • sputnik 7 years ago

        @Baba,

        Quentin Tarantino always makes tributes/homages – he does not even call homages/tributes. He calls it stealing.

        ““I steal from every single movie ever made. I love it – if my work has anything it’s that I’m taking this from this and that from that and mixing them together. If people don’t like that, then tough titty, don’t go and see it, alright? I steal from everything. Great artists steal; they don’t do homages.” – Quentin Tarantino”

        http://tanqeed.com/hollywood/16-brilliant-movie-quotes-from-16-great-directors/

        I liked OSO. It was a spoof as well as tribute/homage to 70s and 80s cinema and also to Madhumati. Main Hoon Na was silly for the most part except for a couple of scenes which were funny.

        I have not seen Housefull 2 but Sajid Khan’s first two movies are crap. I did not see any homage/tributes in them.

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          He seems to be an ‘honest’ thief.good for him.so is he like how abbas mustan use to be in 90s?copying from various sources and stylizing it to audiences tastes?

  3. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Start Tarantino by watching ‘Reservoir Dogs’ and Not Pulp Fiction!

    Watch wid Subtitles to get the Essence f the Movie OR u will say kya Bakwaas Picture thi.

    I hv Noticed u r always Harsh on pretty much evrything…Maybe it’s ur True Opinion itslf but u just like to Rip Apart anything & evrything.

    Maybe I am Wrong but….

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      yes Reservoir dogs ,the original of kaante,is in my see-list since some time.will try to watch.

      • sputnik 7 years ago

        Did Tarantino Steal ‘Reservoir Dogs’ From An 80’s Hong Kong Action Flick?

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/did-tarantino-steal-reser_n_558904.html

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          Saw reservoir dogs the other night.it is slightly overrated.The story is pretty simple but the direction is smart and interesting.The film starts as a failed plan when usually you would expect it to start with the formation of the plan.It runs backwards.Performances are good,dialogues are very good.The film seemed to be made on a shoe-string budget.But the Ending was absurd.I did not understand the point why QT made this film?

          • Baba Ji 7 years ago

            Saw pulp fiction.got bored by the first half especially the track of
            Uma Thurman – John Travolta.But the second half is superb! loved the whole sequence of travolta accidentally shooting that black boy and then the restaurant scene.I think Sameul Jackson more or less owned Pulp Fiction.

  4. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Either u hv Pretty Superhigh Standards fr every next Movie OR Maybe it’s Really Difficult to Please u in Life OR Maybe it’s actually ur Honest Opinion OR Maybe u r some Frustuated Filmmaker/Actor Rejected by the Film Industry.

    😉

    But, I myself am a Nobody to Judge u but still….

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      Don’t worry about Baba. The first time I showed him Oldboy fight scene he dismissed it off but then likes it a lot now. I showed him Dark Knight scene and he said Heath Ledger was overacting and a couple of days later he said he acted well.

      So he might change his opinion 😉

      But how come you did not like Pulp Fiction? I first saw Reservoir Dogs too – may be thats a good film to start QT movies but I loved Pulp Fiction. It is in my all my time favorite lists and I consider it to be one of the best films ever.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      serenzy – I dont believe in double standards.Some People call this scene iconic when it is total trash.But then they attack shankar and other south remakes for being OTT.Being a homage/tribute is no excuse.All south remakes are tributes of each other 😉

  5. sputnik 7 years ago

    @Baba,

    Check out this video and you will know what is tribute/homage.

    I like this fight from the movie.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      the epic fist of fury scene dojo fight scene is raped in kill bill.I wish i had not seen this.This has made me hate it even more.

  6. narad_muni 7 years ago

    I love Kill Bill..
    But I love Baba;s posts even more 😉

    I somehow never understood the greatness of Pulp Fiction.

    • fearlesssoul 7 years ago

      Even i didn’t undertand the greatness of Pulp fiction… The last 15-20 mins of Pulp Fiction was the greatest piece of entertainment in that movie…

  7. Milind 7 years ago

    If a man cannot get the difference between this scene that was a tribute as well as precedent to various such scenes in the modern cinematic era and the crap South action sequences without a soul,he has never understood the essence of a fight.A fight needs a soul.Revenge needs blood.Blood signifies the purest colour a man has.The fountain of blood that is there expresses the degree of revenge that the woman seeks that gets expressed in the later half of the film!

    A southern hero kicking 100 people to show off his strength and style is vastly different than Uma Thurman entering the arena with a sword and unleashing herself.If one watches the entire film,one can see that Tarantino has “unleashed” Thurman and also made constant references to iconic eastern ventures.Moreover Kill Bill is far more well scripted movie than any Southern regular flick.If one laughs at this,I can very well mock OldBoy and Ong Bak anyday,anywhere,anyhow! But one must make decisions after proper thinking and evaluation otherwise one has to change his views on subject after every couple of days.Last heard the author had also started liking GOW. 😉

    • narad_muni 7 years ago

      MIlu,
      I agree but you have to give credit to Baba Ji for equating this scene to the stunts in southie masala movies.

      Before I saw this post, I couldn’t even imagine anyone doing such … but Baba ji is unique 🙂

      Kill Bill is EPIC,truly!

      • Milind 7 years ago

        Shilac,

        There is a difference between “saahas” and “du-saahas” Babaji often commits the later.He rarely gives an original reaction on first viewing.His views keep changing and this is a good thing.I appreciate it.

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          Milind – I always give original feedback.If you see any of my reviews,you wont find a single word of pretense anywhere.Thing is even when i hate a film,i appreciate the good aspects that the film has.Yday i praised the music of GOW.I had trashed RS but appreciated its music,the picturisation of Nadaan Parindey and ranbirs performance.But my basic issues with those films remain the same.Sputnik talked about Old Boy and TDK.I still maintain Old Boy action scene is not excellent.But I read about it and found it was shot in a single take and there is only one camera angle throughout the scene.Keeping that in mind,i think that fight scene was brilliantly choreographed.On TDK,he has acted well in that why so serious scene but overall I found him a little too verbose in the film.

          • fearlesssoul 7 years ago

            i support baba… He gives opinion after watching a movie and not getting influenced by some idol followers/reviewers nor his thoughts are theoritical but rather more practical and hence his views chages which he accepts without any shame… Even when i watched Kill bill i liked the moive but if you just watch this scene it is definitely laughable, a feeling of something like if you revisit old hindi action films that you loved earlier might piss you off in second watch after some years…

        • Milind 7 years ago

          The basic and inherent problem with “practical” reviews are that they never dwell on the academia of movies that form an integral part of atleast these movies like Pulp Fiction and rest One cannot use “practical” to discard the “theory” when it is the theory that should be driving the rest of the discussion. Changing views is nothing new to meMy debates with Ihab were largely centred around my changing views.Therefore I do less of reviews.I can never make a formidable opinion on a movie till I have read it the way it should. Immediate reaction is very shallow..the reaction next morning is important.

          Getting influenced by reviewers is not a bad thing.I do not agree to all that Pauline Kael may write,infact, I detest Rosenbaum on many stuffs,hated Ebert’s review of few Kubrick movies but reading such reviews sometimes can give you plenty of info on how a scene should have been read.Some or many scenes have a history behind them,Till we do not have the language to decipher it,our reading is completely wrong.

          • Baba Ji 7 years ago

            “.I can never make a formidable opinion on a movie till I have read it the way it should. ”

            This is nonsense.This case can be made for any movie whether its good or bad.Akshay fans say tashan (the film) is misunderstood ,ppl didnt view it the way it shud have been.Same for raavan.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      Milind – you are too emotional to appreciate or understand the grammar of action scenes.You keep searching for “souls” while completely ignoring the basic principles involved in such scenes.I am not against OTT action even if I dont like them.But then why diss an ‘Inder – The tiger’ of Chiranjeevi when he kills people ,out of revenge (not to prove his machismo) resulting in fountains of blood?To me both are equally WTF no matter what blood signifies for!

  8. Milind 7 years ago

    If one thinks Gadar Hand Pump scene was as iconic as Kill Bill then one fails to understand that the norm of cinema says that there is a gimmick and then there is a purpose and logic.Gadar shows a normal Punjabi uprooting a hand pump.Kill Bill shows a mauled woman learning martial arts,practicing deathly blows[that sequence in second part is intriguing] and then unleashing herself for the ultimate blood soaked revenge.If Babaji had said Devgan’s Jigar was close to it,I would have relented as that had sense of purpose,an intense one.But for frivolous reasons,mostly gimmick,if one man just to justify his on-screen legacy and sell gimmick uproots a handle,how is that relevant to Kill Bill in any way.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      Milind – you seriously believe there was no purpose involved in the uprooting of hand pump?Sunny was not a “normal” punjabi.He was a superheroic Sikh fighting the “muslim monsters” in Pakistan 😉

  9. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Sputnik,

    “I somehow never understood the greatness of Pulp Fiction.”

    See, as Shilu said up there I too never Understood the Greatness of PF.

    My friend gave me RD & PF and praised both the Movies to the skies.

    But I instantly connectd wid RD…Tarantino ‘had me’ at that Restaurant Table Conversation itself(about the Tip).

    Witty,Smart,Acerbic/Taunting Conversation with Abundance of FUCK’s and dey don’t even know each other names.

    Total Crackpots/Shitheads talking Junk but the Viewer Enjoys it!

    And den Not to forget, the Robbery gone Wrong, all the Action in the Warehouse etc.

    So, RD anyday over PF.

    My problm with PF(I saw it aftr RD) is,
    – it’s not as Witty as RD(except Jules Episode).

    – the Travolta-Thurman Story/ Bruce Willis Story r Mediocre

    – the Ending is Poor.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      Serenzy,exactly my thoughts on PF…I found the ending abrupt even in RD.I think ending is a problem with tarantino.

  10. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Now, IB is another Tarantino Movie I like a lot.

    Dialogues r Sharp…Acting is Purrrfectt…And the Mind Blowing Scenes.

    Those long drawn scenes Tarantino Writes with Strong Dramatic Tension, Sharp Dialogues btwn the Charactrs, long & effective scenes with Suprb Acting.

    Take for instance, dat Opening Scene where Waltz so Carmly creates the Terror or dat scene at the Pub with Fassbender,Pitt and Others.

    Dat Pub Scene was 1 of d best i hv seen.

    I just have problms wid IB Climax vich was way to Filmy and Laughable.

    I dont know abt Pitt’s Acting but I think he looks Amazing on Screen…IMO, Jolie is Lucky to hv him aftr Aniston.
    😀

  11. Serenzy 7 years ago

    There r many Movies heralded as Classics/Great thru Generations but I dint like it OR liked in parts(or some character) but Not much :-

    POTC Series

    When Harry Met Sally

    Memento(I need a Rewatch)

    Oldboy

    Silence of the Lambs

    Black Swan

    The Hurt Locker

    Mean Streets

    Saturday Night Fever

    • fearlesssoul 7 years ago

      what is potc?, black swan was a big headache movie, i loved hurt locker, old boy, memento (i need a rewatch too), silence of lamb.. but haven’t seen mean streets and saturday night fever.. If they are good, i will watch it…. let me know…

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        yes i will watch memento too.sputnik says its Nolans best film.

        • hithere 7 years ago

          some of the portions may look boring but in end you will give credit for screenplay…and climax is something which will make you see the movie again..

  12. sputnik 7 years ago

    The first time I tried to see POTC I did not like it and I stopped watching it in 20 minutes or so. I had to watch it because of friends the next time and I liked it. Its a movie that works basically because of Johnny Depp.

    I loved Memento, Oldboy, Silence of the Lambs, The Hurt Locker. I liked Black Swan too. Have not seen Mean Streets & Saturday Night Fever.

    I did not like IB – the Christoph Waltz scene was excellent and is a great scene but after that I got bored. Did not like Brad Pitt and his southern accent.

    Now coming to Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs – Reservoir Dogs is a very good movie and in a way it can be called be the prerunner to Pulp Fiction. It has that casual conversations and all. But Pulp Fiction was taking it to another level.

    Now Reservoir Dogs has that Mr.T & Mr.Pink and all but they were still connected.

    In Pulp Fiction there seem to be different parallel tracks which are not connected initially but they all connect in some ways. I am not sure if it was the first but it made these whole parallel tracks popular and now there have been so many movies now which do this whole parallel tracks. I love the ending too because it seems to all come together.

    Two Gangster discussing Burgers, foot massage and Samuel Jackson constantly reciting that verse from the Bible. A couple who are small time thieves planning to rob a restaurant. John Travolta taking his boss wife to dinner but afraid at the same time that something might happen between them because of the past stories. The boxer having to throw the game from On the Waterfront. The ring thing is like a spoof or mocking of all those movie scenes where some guy risks his life to give some thing valuable to someone after being in war or being imprisoned. The gangsters who take the body and the blood filled car and the expert who tells them how to “fix the situation”. Almost every scene is brilliant.

    Brilliant performances by everyone – Samuel Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Bruce Willis …..
    What’s there not to like.

    May be this QT interview will help.

    • fearlesssoul 7 years ago

      potc – pirates of the carribeans? if so i liked all parts 😉 they were good entertainers, not boring ones..

  13. Suprabh 7 years ago

    Pulp Fiction is the best masala movie ever . Its one of those movie where almost each and every line became iconic and has tremendous repeat value.

    Its masala because you don’t really have to think much, just go with the flow and enjoy the superlative scenes tarantino gives you, one after the other. For me, its easily one of the most entertaining movies ever made.

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      “Pulp Fiction is the best masala movie ever . Its one of those movie where almost each and every line became iconic and has tremendous repeat value.”

      Agree with you.

      ——————————–

      Here is a Iconic or laughable scene depending on what you want to call 😉

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=AlJTD7No65s

      • Suprabh 7 years ago

        Awesome.Loved it……What an awesome choreography !! /kamal did quite well !!

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          LOL! it seemed like a parody of the kung fu movies of that time 😀 may be a “homage” kind of stuff like kill bill 😉

  14. narad_muni 7 years ago

    I believe Pulp Fiction became iconic because the entire screenplay was new with the parallel tracks …

    When I saw it, the parallel tracks was nothing new for me..
    There were some brilliant scenes and performances no doubt.

    Don’t get me wrong – I am not saying I din’t like it. All I am saying that it did not meet my expectations as it is regarded one of the best movies ever made.

    CHampu, plz dont use abbreviations. At least give the full name once. 🙂

  15. hithere 7 years ago

    Any fans of “From Dusk Till Dawn”?

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      Did you like it?

      My friends praised the movie so much so I decided to check it out. It started out well and seemed interesting till the “transformation” scenes. After that I just did not like the movie.

      • hithere 7 years ago

        haha..I like it very much..it is wacky 🙂
        I know most wouldn’t like it.

  16. Milind 7 years ago

    Popular cinema of the ’90s saw some radical and fascinating experiments with conventional notions of narrative time and logic. Beginnings revealed themselves later to be endings; narratives followed circular routes; multiple narrative paths, independent of each other, crossed, entwined, merged and diverged; characters did not develop in any “conventional” way, they appeared then disappeared, dying in one scene and then alive in another.

    These narratives are circular, fragmented, insoluble and “performative”. Two films that I am thinking of especially are David Lynch’s Lost Highway (1996) and Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994). The latter triggered a myriad of clones, establishing itself over time as a major cultural event, influencing films, television, advertising and music. The former, though less influential and popular, remains a profoundly fascinating and perplexing installment in Lynch’s oeuvre of the dark, the unconscious and the offbeat.

    Pulp Fiction tells three stories, each based upon specific characters: Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson); Vincent and Mia (Uma Thurman); Butch (Bruce Willis) and Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). In a maze like fashion, each story circles, alludes and entwines the others. In its play with narrative time, Pulp Fiction reminds me of the classic B-grade, noir/gangster film The Killing (Stanley Kubrick, 1956). In this film, the idea of a progressive narrative is also reworked and undermined to allow for a more objective and “truer” telling of the caper. However, its effect is more a “strange” formal echo, in which narrative time is foregrounded and made palpable. This formal echo also occurs in Pulp Fiction with its narrative that stops and starts, shifts and rewinds, forcing the viewer to construct the story – the trajectory of each character, their interrelation with other characters and fictions, the “how”, “what”, “when” and “why” of the narrative.

    Pulp Fiction has a circular narrative. At certain moments where the narratives intersect, the theme of the uncanny and destiny arises, for example, where Butch and Vincent pass each other at Marsellus’ bar. They exchange hostile glances and comments for no apparent reason. The sequence is mysterious, and Vincent’s immediate reaction of hostility toward Butch proceeds unexplained. Of course, later on, in the story concerned with Butch and his escape from the LA mob, he comes across Vincent and kills him.

    But the play with narrative in Pulp Fiction is just one of its peculiarities, although one that definitely enriches its viewing experience. Another is the “colour” in each character of this film, and by “colour” I mean a certain stylisation and distinctiveness. Each character has “attitude” or something to say, which brings me to a central theme of Pulp Fiction – the amount of talking that goes on and the richness and layering of the dialogue. Influences here are not only the witty and clipped dialogue of the American film noir and gangster films, but also, the prosaic qualities of the French New Wave (1).

    There is a constant outpouring of “chit chat” throughout Pulp Fiction, always humourous and amusing, that transpires in cars, hallways, coffee shops, elevators, beds and taxis, between friends, lovers and strangers, and on a myriad of topics. Quite specifically, all this constant talking centres upon characters reflecting, intellectualising and philosophising everyday matters, in everyday spaces. Characters engage in serious debates over the meaning of a foot massage or when the moment of delivery of a joke has expired. Everyday talk is stylised, enhanced and layered, and so rendered dramatic, rich and poetic.

    Throughout Pulp Fiction, many characters appear either momentarily or longer, and each is distinctive and intriguing in the detail, of their look, speech and manner. There is a richness in this detail – achieved through a self-conscious referencing of pop culture and sharp and clever dialogue. The various distinctive characters that populate Pulp Fiction, apart from those more central, include: the fast-talking drug dealer (Eric Stoltz) and his “trippy” wife (Patricia Arquette), the Spanish, sassy cab driver Esmarelda Villalobos (Angela Jones), the ever-charismatic Mr Wolf (Harvey Keitel), the French sweetheart Fabienne (Maria De Medeiros), the irrepressible Christopher Walken, the offbeat Zed (Peter Greene) and his partner, and Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer) and Pumpkin (Tim Roth). Each one is distinct in their quirks and idiosyncrasies. This mix of offbeat, peculiar and distinctive characters recall the world of B-grade films and television. Pulp Fiction can only be fully understood and appreciated by acknowledging the extent to which it is so connected to the history of popular (American) film and television.

    Pulp Fiction celebrates very much the spectacle of the detail. One scene that is remarkable in this sense is the scene where Vincent goes to pick up Mia on their “first date”. Snapshots of dialogue and image here build a certain tension, suspense and desire around the figure of Mia. She is revealed in snippets: her voice in the letter that Vincent finds on the door that she literally reads, the shots of her (from behind) in the control booth, the extreme close-up of her scarlet red lips, the close-up of her hand manipulating the control stick, and most of all, her clever, cute, pop cultural one liners. Her “coolness” is emphasised through Dusty Springfield’s soulful “Son Of A Preacher Man”, that injects into the scene a euphoric rhythm and feel that is practically palpable.

    The character of Mia as the Gangster’s Wife is a reference to this traditional character in the history of Hollywood cinema. But she seems lost or perpetually stuck in the world of popular film and TV, which bestows upon her an ability the other characters apparently don’t have of drawing a square and having this realised on the cinematic/image level! Indeed, for Vincent, part of her charm and innocence derives from this quality of exhibiting the values, behaviour and manner of the television and film world. However, there also exists in Mia a level of honesty, frankness and open-ness toward reality, exemplified in her discussion on the awkwardness of “an uncomfortable silence”. This theme of open-ness runs throughout this film, in the randomness and rambling nature of the dialogue.

    But there is a seriousness to Pulp Fiction, where its harmless and amusing “talk” gets contrasted with the actuality and intensity of “reality”. For example: the accidental shooting of Marvin; the casual, brutal execution of the boys in the apartment; Mia’s overdose and the pumping of adrenaline into her; Vincent’s abrupt death, and the bondage scene in Zed’s store. These moments disturb, horrify, move, behold, and command the viewer. However, despite their force and intensity, they remain as dramatic events on the same plane as the harmless “talk”; they function almost as narrative tangents, incidental to the narrative, without any central significance. This resonates most clearly in the shooting of Vincent, an important character for the viewer up until this point. Like the “everyday talk” that goes on throughout the film, these moments transpire in an everyday fashion – incidental and chance-like. However, their effects are more serious, as they determine or alter a character’s fate.

    A constant theme that persists in Pulp Fiction and that its formal logic “performs” is the significance of the incidental and the overall power of the detail. This is ironic for a film so vivid and full of colour and so keyed to a popular audience response, but perfectly apt for one so tied to the history and experience of cinema as Pulp Fiction.

    Lost Highway is a film that breaks all the rules. It denies the viewer requisite narrative information to figure out what each character wants, where they’re going and whether they have reached fulfillment, at which point there is typically narrative closure. These “rules” belong to classical American cinema. With its circular narrative and inexplicable narrative events, Lost Highway beholds and suspends the viewer in an eternal state of “unknowingness” and fascination.

    The film is a radical formal reworking of film noir. It is the ultimate homage to the male character riddled with anxiety, insecurity and paranoia triggered by and projected onto the figure of woman. The first images of the film are extreme close-ups of Fred (Bill Pullman), looking profoundly troubled, perturbed and introspective and, with typical noir desperation, smoking a cigarette. As in classic noir, the femme fatale in Lost Highway, Renee/Alice (Patricia Arquette), is less a character in her own right than a projection of male fear and desire. From Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944) to Body Heat (Lawrence Kasdan, 1981), narrative is essentially the tracing of a male story, structured upon and articulated from a male point of view.

    Lost Highway references this tradition, yet takes its logic to a formal extreme. The awakening, workings and effects of the male unconscious (its fears and desires) is the film’s central subject matter. The narrative “performs” the theme of the unconscious and the uncanny through its abstract and nonlinear qualities, sudden inexplicable changes (for example, the “substitute” of Fred by Pete [Balthazar Getty]) and a particular use of mise en scène as a metaphor of the unconscious.

    Although the film performs something radical on a formal level, it is still locked within ideological categories that circumscribe the figure of woman as the eternal figure of death and desire entwined. There is only one female character in Lost Highway, and, she doubles half way through the film. In this film, the femme fatale haunts the male wherever he goes; this act of doubling and multiplying makes her more unattainable, uncontrollable and untamable. She is reworked in Lost Highway as almost the archetypal duplicitous woman. She appears always as highly sexualised, even in domestic, ordinary situations, and she commands the male character with her style, allure and grace.

    Significantly, the act of sex in Lost Highway is aestheticised and attributed a certain mystery and meaning. For Fred, it is a measure of his manliness; when Renee consoles him for “failing” during sex (indicated by the patronising pat on his back and assuring words), the mood of the scene swiftly shifts to a profoundly darker and haunting tone. Renee triggers and confirms Fred’s male anxiety and insecurity, which, in turn, propels the narrative. As a result the figure of woman is represented in this film as a double-edged entity, a twin source of promised fulfillment and eternal damnation. At the end of Lost Highway, Fred’s paranoia is resolved somewhat by arriving at the position of knowing that he will never “have” Alice/Renee. As a result, he is destined to journey solo down a “lost highway” enshrouded in eternal darkness, and on the outskirts of society.

    What is interesting about the film (beyond its reprehensible attitude toward the figure of woman), is its narrative landscape, its narrative tenor, the sense of the uncanny that it is enshrouded in, the way it works less in a literal sense and more in a figurative and highly metaphorical way. The way in which the properties of cinema – sound, image – are used in a highly sensuous, metaphorical manner.

    The first quarter of the film is remarkable in this regard. Its precise pacing, composition and camera movement and the minimalist yet powerful soundtrack reverberates and emanates a mood of incredible mystery and stillness. Fred and Renee are married. Their home is a sparse, minimalist, low-lit “zone” that they “float” through rather than “live” in. This “zone” is filled with rooms and hallways enveloped in darkness, heavy red curtains and rich interiors that take on a sensuous presence, a particular countenance. Such objects become filled with an “aura” as they “speak to” and draw in the character of Fred. Nothing reveals this more clearly than the sequence where Fred glides toward the darkness of a hallway with such intensity, fascination, intrigue and obsession. This is really the key moment in the whole film – the “meta” moment – despite the fact that nothing in it “literally” happens.

    The film achieves a definite formal purity in this early part (slightly diminished later on) as it, with such clarity and intensity, metaphorises the rise of, and the encounter with, the unconscious. And what a sea of anger and anxiety there lies within; which is confirmed by the following sequence in which Fred is revealed to have slaughtered his wife following this “encounter”. Mise en scène, in this first part of the film, becomes purely and abstractly metaphoric.

    The distinctness of this sequence in the film is partly created through its curious aesthetic structure: a series of tableaux that, like in the startling Flowers of Shanghai (Haishang Hua, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1998), form a series of set-pieces that pass in a breathing motion: fade in and out, rise and fall, emerge and dissolve. The rhythm and tone that the sequence achieves is intoxicating and mesmerising. Lost Highway is a very stylised film that, like a lot of post-Hollywood American cinema, proceeds with a certain theatricality (self-consciousness, irony) in its presentation of character and story. It is also very economical (in a minimalist sense): every word and gesture is important to the overall story.

    Lost Highway proceeds according to a dream logic. Characters are doubled and replaced, occurrences and events proceed with an uncanny echo, and parallel universes that share uncanny similarities emerge. The film is profoundly surreal in this sense. There is no cause to explain any of the film’s effects; the story emerges from the vortex of Fred’s mind (especially, his unconscious), which in the final moments (and to be sure, its truest and horrifying moments) implodes violently and irreversibly. This inner rage is present throughout the film in the various flashes of intensity and revelation that punctuate the narrative: the intensity of the jail cell light bulb, the uncanny omnipresence of the “mystery man”, the blurred vision of small-town mechanic, Pete.

    If the first part of the film refers to an awakening of unconscious fears and desires, the second part, triggered by the unexplained switch in characters, refers to its effects. In particular, it is haunted by the uncanny. Fred’s substitute, Pete, becomes the vehicle for experiencing the uncanny. In this parallel universe, there is a strange feeling that we have been here before. The strange familiarity of events and circumstances is not more illustrated than the moment when Pete first sees Alice, presented magisterially. The exchange of looks is slowed down, heightened and electrified, with the help of the guitar chords and voice of Lou Reed. The profound recognition that this moment visualises links back to a theme that runs throughout philosophy – the recollection of what once was, something long past and eternally lost. It is described by theorist Miriam Hansen as “the prototype of a look”:

    The prototype of a look that leaves a residue, that lingers beyond its actualisation in space and time, is the maternal look that children (of both sexes) know upon themselves even as they are separating, and which enables them to separate (2).

    The “maternal look” as described here links quite easily with the figure of the femme fatale. This connection is confirmed in the film as Alice is eventually revealed to be the duplicitous woman.

    These two films subvert conventional notions of narrative time and logic, yet remain highly engaging and genuinely intriguing cinematic experiences. They create formal worlds that fit perfectly with, and express poetically, the films’ thematics. And so they remain endlessly fascinating.

    Courtesy: Senses of Cinema

  17. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Watchd ‘Ram aur Shyam’ just now…My 1st Ever Dilip Kumar Movie.

    And man…I am Knocked Out!
    Totally!

    • Yakuza 7 years ago

      And i thought i am only one who is least exposed to Dilip kumar movies. You need to see Ganga Jamuna, Devdas, Naya Daur, Mughal-e-azam .. and from his later character roles .. shakti, karma, saudagar, vidhata, Mashaal .. this is all what i have seen from Dilip Kumar.

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        yakuza – karma and saudagar were not were very good films.his kranti was atrocious.I still laugh at many of its scenes including the masterpiece song “mera chana kha gaye gore” 😀 .There is one altercation scene between DK amd MK where both are giving each other competition in hamming.kranti for me is like so-bad-its-good category 😀

        • Yakuza 7 years ago

          Well i listed movies of DK which i have seen .. not necessary they were good.

          Karma was outstanding, one of best of 80’s. Even i never able to like Kranti, though for different reasons than you. Saudagar was okay.

          But his all movies from 50’s and 60’s which i listed above are classics.

  18. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Yakuza,

    For sure…Heard and Read soooo much abt DK thru d years dat I hv made it a Point to watch all his ‘Must Watch’ Movies & Performances in my Lifetime.

    All those DK Movies u mentioned are there in my Movie List so are Bachchan’s Movies(u commentd a Long List f his Hits some days bak on NG).

    Problem is being a 90’s kid watching 50-70 Stuff can get OTT/tacky/boring dat’s why I see all the Old Movies slowly,one by one so I get the Essence/Feel of the Movie.

    ………

    Baba,
    And I say Memento is Nolan’s Weakest(Ghajini is Better 😛 😛 ).

    Nolan’s Best is Inception & Prestige.

    Looking frwrd to ur True(Harsh?) Opinions…

    And, Beware…Seeing Such H’Wood Movies makes a person averse to our Own Desi Bollywood Movies.

    And I don’t want u to b another ‘Ihab’.
    😀

    • Yakuza 7 years ago

      “Problem is being a 90′s kid watching 50-70 Stuff can get OTT/tacky/boring dat’s why I see all the Old Movies slowly,one by one so I get the Essence/Feel of the Movie.”

      Yes .. agree, its difficult to go through oldie stuff. But if movie is engaging enough, it will hold you in first 30 minutes .. no matter how poor the technology is.

  19. sputnik 7 years ago

    Double Take: Uma Thurman’s shoes in ‘Kill Bill: Vol. 1′

    “With each viewing, the film takes on a new layer of meaning, reinventing and reformulating itself right before your eyes.

    This is especially true of Quentin Tarantino‘s films, which, over time, have become notorious for their obscure references and stylistic subtleties. Take, for instance, the above screenshot from Kill Bill: Vol. 1, recently captured by Reddit user TheRobertissimo. Here, the camera captures the bottom of Uma Thurman‘s shoes as she struts her way across the House of Blue Leaves, just minutes before her epic battle against O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and her “Crazy 88″ army. Tarantino only pauses here for a few seconds, but it’s just long enough to make out the appropriately belligerent “FUCK U” message inscribed across the soles of Thurman’s shoes.

    It’s a small detail, and one that has virtually zero impact on the film’s narrative, but it definitely makes that 574th viewing all the more worthwhile.”

    ?9d7bd4

    http://www.miramax.com/subscript/uma-thurman-shoes-kill-bill-vol-1-easter-egg

  20. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    I think if you want to show OTT action,this is a better way to present it.Going all out! also helps that it was set in a virtual world

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=uBaeSq_R38Q

  21. stewie griffin 7 years ago

    babaji, you have just highlighted the character dheela syndrome 😀
    if the angrez does it its got some layer of meaning to it,..its iconic..if its indians doing it its laughable ott..
    the same people who proclaim kill bill as iconic laugh at salman hulking up in dabanng.after all salman had just learnt the true reason for his moms death..isn’t tht pretty symbolic ? 😀

    i have watched kill bill and i liked it..no way i found it iconic or something but was pretty damn entertaining.But appreciating kill bill’s ott action scenes and ridiculing indian ott action movies reeks of double standard.Either criticise or love both.making excuses for one and slaughtering other is silly to its core

  22. stewie griffin 7 years ago

    its like akki fans criticising bodyguard action scenes for being too ott yet going orgasmic over vikram rathore beating up zillions of villains as iconic..eihter both are ott or both are acceptable

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      absolutely stewie.I think there should be consistency in the preference.As i said earlier,I dont have a problem if anyone likes OTT action.but then why diss those south films which have the same stuff?

  23. sputnik 7 years ago

    @stewie,

    There is a difference between a normal action scene and a scene which is done as a homage/tribute.

    Now you must have seen the song “Kabhi Tu Chhalia Lagta Hai” from Pathar Ke Phool. It is what is called a homage/tribute. Now the posters of the old movies are there so people can tell it is a tribute/homage. What if the old movie posters were not there? Only those who have seen/heard about the old movies/songs will get that homage/tribute part.

    Those who have not seen or seen/heard the old movie/song will dismiss as standard routine song.

    SOTD: Kabhi Tu Chhalia Lagta Hai – Pathar Ke Phool

    Please watch the video which I had posted in my comment above.

    Iconic or laughable?

  24. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    “Those who have not seen or seen/heard the old movie/song will dismiss as standard routine song.”

    This is where the problem lies sputnik.I did not even know Kill Bill was homage stuff till you told me about it.I judged its action scene solely on its own merit.When I saw its homage video,the original stuff,it just made Kill bill look even more trashy 😀

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      “When I saw its homage video,the original stuff,it just made Kill bill look even more trashy :D”

      That’s true of most homage stuff. Homage itself means saying we are not as good as you 😉

  25. stewie griffin 7 years ago

    @baba-exactly 😀
    @sputnik-as far as i know kill bill wasn;t made for scholars of cinema 😀
    it was made for normal movie going public like me.And homage or not it is way too ott.The difference is i accept both kill bill and rowdy rathore or dabangg for wat it is..and enjoy it based on that.
    No matter how much you try to justify kill bill action..you can never deny that it is laughably over the top
    and if kill bill action is some kind of homage to some movies…salman hulking up too is a homage to dharmendra i guess 😀 and akki action is homage to south indian masala 😀
    yet u somehow make a distinction saying kill bill as iconic and south masala as trashy..for me both are delicious apples..that too Pink lady ones..one and the same

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      I liked Dabangg but I did not like RR/Bodyguard. Yeah you can say that Salman scene is homage to Dharmendra.

      Have you ever seen anyone say Transformers scene is iconic? No one does. All action that looks similar is nor the same.

      QT’s next movie after Kill Bill was Grindhouse which was a tribute to all B grade movies.

  26. stewie griffin 7 years ago

    salman jumping from train to train in bodyguard,vikram rathore after beating up so many guys but due to his brain problem is about to die after being fatally stabbed suddenly is given a new popeye like power from a single drop of rain and in kill bill blood flowing like a fountain…are these all not laughably over the top?they belong to the same group. So why trash the indian ones and glorify the hollywood ones?

  27. stewie griffin 7 years ago

    if people argued that kill bill ott action were much better executed than rowdy rathore or any south movies..that would have been fine..but trashing south actioners for its very overthetopness while glorifying kill bill’s is what i find silly..for example imo i found wanted action scenes were much better executed than say a dabangg or rowdy rathore..but can i ridicule dabangg or rr for its ott action wen i happened to like wanted action which itself was ott?

    That’s why consistency should be applied while criticising movies

  28. sputnik 7 years ago

    @Baba,

    There are some parts of Pulp Fiction which are a little slowpaced like John Uma track and the Bruce Willis track but I liked the John Uma track too 😀

    Yes Sameul Jackson pretty much owned everyone else.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      There are lot of random songs playing in the background in the Uma-travolta track.These may be some tributes which i didnt catch. 😉

      The thing about Tarantino films is he likes to show people the psyche of criminals like they also can talk the way normal ppl do,discuss stuff,gossip about music,food while doing their dirty work.I think thats his USP.Though this was better done in RD than PF.

  29. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    sputnik ,check this piece on tarantino.more or less my views on him

    Quentin Tarantino: Most overrated director of all time?

    Before I begin, let me preface by saying that Pulp Fiction is an incredible movie with possibly my favorite script ever written, I can’t really say a single thing bad about it. But that’s part of the problem I have with this guy, he has the talent to make incredible films but squanders it trying to prove to everyone that he knows more about movies than we do by remaking obscure genre movies from the 70s and 80s that were fucking horrible to begin with.

    Take a look at his director list, take a good HONEST look and observe all the pieces of shit he’s made since PF.

    Kill Bill: Vol. 3 (announced)

    2012 Django Unchained (filming)

    2009 Inglourious Basterds

    2007 Death Proof

    2007 Grindhouse (segment “Death Proof”)

    2005 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (TV series)
    – Grave Danger: Volume 1 (2005)
    – Grave Danger: Volume 2 (2005)

    2005 Sin City (special guest director)

    2004 Jimmy Kimmel Live! (TV series)
    – Episode #3.75 (2004)

    2004 Kill Bill: Vol. 2

    2003 Kill Bill: Vol. 1

    1997 Jackie Brown

    1995 Four Rooms (segment “The Man from Hollywood”)

    1995 ER (TV series)
    – Motherhood (1995)

    1994 Pulp Fiction

    1992 Reservoir Dogs

    His followers/lovers will have you believe he’s a top 5 director of all time and one of, if not the best director in the business today. It is this mind-blowing infatuation with this guy that NEEDS to stop.

    Let’s take an in-depth look:

    Jackie Brown: considered one of his best and to be honest, it is despite being just a decent movie at best. Still, it was original and if QT continued his career making these types of movies, I wouldn’t be making this post.

    Kill Bill: An over the top corny action movie where a 110 pound blonde girls massacres hundreds of people at once based on a generic and highly unbelievable revenge theme. This is the start of QT’s demise imo. He realized here that he could make a garbage movie but if he based it on another, ahem, payed “homage” to another movie from the past, people would EAT IT UP. This 6ish/10 movie has an EIGHT POINT TWO on IMDB and is on the TOP 250 MOVIES OF ALL TIME LOL.

    Here’s the thing, standing alone, is this movie one of the top 250 ever? No, of course not. Even you QT dickriders should agree with that. The idea that this movie paying “homage” to an old genre makes it that much better is your first clue that you’re wrong. I’ve yet to hear a single sound argument that this movie AS ITSELF is a an 8+/10 movie and I don’t expect it to happen ITT.

    Kill Bill Volume 2: This is the 2nd half of the movie that only exists separately to milk money from braindead fans. There is absolutely no other reason why they weren’t combined and edited into one movie. Annoying.

    Sin City: Another “homage” movie but I won’t go too far indepth with this one because I have a feeling he did little more than put his name in the credits to attract viewers. Either way, it’s not a movie he should be too proud of as it’s just the same typical strategy: make a lot of obscure references to old movies that no one has seen before that do nothing to advance any real theme, meaning, or plot.

    Grindhouse/Death Proof: I won’t have to say much here because I think it’s pretty unanimous even with the dorks that Death Proof was fucking awful. Well, actually it does have a 7.1 on imdb. Another case of one of his movies being rated at least 2 whole points higher than it should be based on pointless references.

    Inglorious Basterds: Oh…a hollywood dork making a movie about WW2 where Jews not only kill all types of nazis, but also put over 400 bullets into Hitler’s carcass? LOL what a shameless, perverted pile of shit. As if the intentional spelling mistakes in the title weren’t annoying enough. All that unbelievable bullshit aside though, this was actually an alright movie with incredible acting so I won’t hate on it too much. Just a bit tired of movies wanting to be taken seriously then completely and shamelessly rewriting history. It’s a bit overrated and has that same corny QT flavor that’s been present in his movies for over a decade at this point.

    Django Unchained: Before I had this revelation about QT today, this was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Leo, Jamie Foxx, Samuel L, kurt russell, borat? FUCK YEAH. Then I did some research on it and learned some horrible things.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0906665/

    Look at this piece of shit movie. And look who is starring in it.

    Here we go again.

    A crappy movie based on

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_%28film%29

    Yes, this dickhead convinced Leonardo Dicaprio, a smooth pimp who is on a 10 year 10 movie streak of greatness (I’m still pretending J Edgar doesn’t exist) to lead this joke of a film. Well we can consider that streak officially over. A film to pay homage to an Italian Spaghetti Western with a Japanese twist…I can hardly wait. Most not retards know this movie has a 99% chance to fall short as a film, but we also know it will be cluttered with countless references which will only serve to gratify QT and the worst kinds of movie snobs alive. There’s going to be like 5 layers of references in this movie and faggots will watch it frame by frame picking them out so they can talk about how awesome they are at film appreciation while they simultaneously jack off to their tim burton posters.

    Instead of actually caring about making an interesting story, its all about “framing this shot from the angle of that scene” or “wearing the outfit from that movie” and the movie itself just ends up being crap.

    Kill Bill 3 (announced):

    99% of the people who disagree with me are the same people who thought Machete was a good movie. Machete is a 2/10 movie and follows the same strategy that QT has been using for over a decade. Fuck you all.

  30. sputnik 7 years ago

    Looks like the guy is pissed off with Quentin Tarantino’s fame and popularity. He also seems jealous that QT knows so much about movies.

    Sin City? He is supposed to be guest director and directed one scene.

    I have not seen Jackie Brown or Death Proof or Kill Bill 2. Like I said before I did not like Kill Bill but I still admire all the movie references that he used in it.

    QT is a movie geek/nerd and he used to work at a video store. He has obviously seen lots of movies and uses references to a lot of obscure movies and scenes and actors/singers. Looking at the list of tributes/references of PF I can just say that he is a genius.

    Now the people who love and discuss movies will like all those references and even if they don’t know the references the discussion about all those references will make his movies cult.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      Some reviews on imdb which echo my thoughts on his Kill Bill:

      “A one-trick pony, a video store loser wannabee who should be directing music videos, not movies. His films are hackneyed exercises in stylistic violence and callousness, all in a pathetic attempt to appear “cool” to growth-stunted Columbine wannabees who have never grown emotionally past comic books and video games.

      Tarantino seems absolutely incapable of creating an honest emotion or mature theme in any of his films. Tarantino is to film what Howard Stern is to radio, mainly an exploitive, derivative hack. Message to Quentin: Grow up already and make a contribution or else go back to Blockbuster where you belong.”

      “Tarantino ingests, but he doesn’t digest.”

      He puts his thousands of hours of trash-movie-watching references up there, we get them (or we don’t), and then what? I mean, isn’t the pleasure scant when we recognize the source of the Bride’s yellow suit? And then what? The critic was pointing out that it’s a director/writer’s job to shape and develop the material, and not just keep elbow nudging us with the encyclopedic references of pop junk.”

      • sputnik 7 years ago

        There will be haters for all filmmakers – people who think that a director/movie is overrated. Why are you searching so hard for negative reviews or negative opinions?

        I don’t agree with this comment. I love Pulp Fiction and I think it is a cult classic. Quentin Tarantino’s direction was great in Pulp Fiction.

        “video store loser wannabee” – And the guy who wrote this comment is what? A loser wannabe critic?

        I don’t understand what’s the big deal. If somebody does not like his movies they don’t need to watch them.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      “He also seems jealous that QT knows so much about movies.”

      Just because QT grew up watching whole lot of B grade stuff and uses obscure references to them in his movies doesnt mean he necessarily knows about cinema.This is same as sajid khan who claims that he sees 3 movies everyday and that he knows more about cinema than most directors around! 😉

      • sputnik 7 years ago

        hmm So QT – maker of RD and PF does not know about Cinema. He is a Oscar winner – Best Original Screenplay for PF and his movies have been nominated for multiple Oscars.

        Sajid Khan can claim whatever the hell he wants to but he is a crap filmmaker and has made craps like Hey Baby and Housefull 1. I used to love his Kahne mein kya harj hai TV show but unfortunately his movies are craps.

        Farah is a way better filmmaker than Sajid. Atleast Farah’s movies have some movie references which people may get or not.

        Sajid has not made any Indian equivalent to RD and PF and neither is Sajid some critically acclaimed or award winning filmmaker like QT.

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          for me farah,sajid and tarantino are all crap filmmakers to put it harshly.You cannot claim yourself to be great in the name of “homage”.Tarantino is far more innovative in the way he writes the dialogues though and i admire it.

  31. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    I will tell you a personal point of view here as well.The whole aftermath sequence when travolta shoots the boy is almost silly.
    You dont need a certain Mr Expert (Winston) to tell you the obvious basics you need to do if you just shot a boy! more so when you are a seasoned gangster.The expert tells them nothing out of the blue but only what any dumbass would do in such a situation – clean the car and clean oneself and then dump the body.The whole sequence though funny and entertaining is such a silly stretch .In some other film,this sequence might not have lasted for more than say 5 mins!

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      The thing is that a Quentin Tarantino movie demands a lot of knowledge about other movies. Some of these guys are just pissed off because he references other movies which they have no clue about.

      Watch this scene from Point of No Return. The Wolf scene is referenced from this scene and the same Harvey Keitel plays Victor the Cleaner in that movie.

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        sputnik – ppl get the references but you are not trying to see the larger point they make.( may be because you are also one of his big fans) One of the comments i gave was from a critic who summed it up perfectly.let me re quote him:

        ““Tarantino ingests, but he doesn’t digest.”

        He puts his thousands of hours of trash-movie-watching references up there, we get them (or we don’t), and then what? I mean, isn’t the pleasure scant when we recognize the source of the Bride’s yellow suit? And then what? ”

        The critic was pointing out that it’s a director/writer’s job to shape and develop the material, and not just keep elbow nudging us with the encyclopedic references of pop junk.”

        • sputnik 7 years ago

          ” And then what?”

          Lets say a movie has a joke that you got and you will say “And then what?”. You enjoy the joke.

          Similarly if someone gets a movie reference they will enjoy.

          Take Andaz Apna Apna. In one scene Aamir and Salman are fighting and the sidekick says “Sholay dekhi hai?” Salman says “Haan haan, dus baar!” Aamir says “Iske baap ne likhi hai?” which is actually true as Salman’s father Salim Khan did write Sholay along with Javed Akhtar.

          Now the person who knows that Salman’s father wrote Sholay will get the joke and laugh whereas the person who does not know may not find that funny.

          AAA has a lot of movie references

          Mehmood reprises his role of a director of ‘Wah Wah Productions’ from ‘Pyar Kiye Ja’. People who have seen that movie or at least that scene will enjoy Mehmood’s AAA scene more.

          Mogambo Ka bhanja Goga – what if the viewer has not seen Mr.India and never heard of Mogambo?

          “Seeta Aur Geeta nahin, Ram aur Shyam” – what if the viewer has never heard of those movies?

          Mark idhar hai main teja hoon joke will be enjoyed more by those people who have seen/heard of those old Kumbh Mela movies where twins are differentiated by moles.

          The last scene of people pointing guns to each other from AAA pays tribute to Victoria No 203. Those who have seen that movie will get it and enjoy the scene more.

          Or else one can say AAA is crap – all those movies references are just show off by Rajkumar Santoshi.

          • Baba Ji 7 years ago

            sputnik – RKS made AAA just once,he didnt repeat the homage stuff in all his films thereafter .and i dont think AAA to be the best comedy ever.There are many films especially Hera pheri was far better..

            QT is a one-trick poney 😛 may be you want to say QT films are mindless entertainers.I agree if you do.

  32. sputnik 7 years ago

    I consider AAA to be one of the best comedies ever. Hera Pheri is also a good comedy but it also has lot of emotional/sentimental scenes whereas AAA never gets emotional/sentimental.

    Anyways you can think of QT as a crap filmmaker. Its your opinion. Lets agree to disagree.

  33. Serenzy 7 years ago

    ^^
    Nice Discussion Guys.

    ……..

    BTW, (Re)Watched Memento…Loved it…

    Nolan is an Absolute Freaking Genius Legendary!

    Will discuss abt it more if sumbody brings u d Topic in Future.
    ……

    Another Cult Post fr TQ this.
    :claps:

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      i will bring the topic of memento soon. Just finished downloading it (on sputnik’s reccomendation 😀 ) ,will see it by tmrw nite or so.

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      I will post scenes from Memento this week in SOTW.

      Expecting full scale Memento bashing from Baba 😉

      • hithere 7 years ago

        I have seen it multiple times. First time saw in hall when it released and cliamx just went over my head. Then again saw on DVD. Some people don’t like the format of screenplay. But then that is most innovative part. and There is color and BW part aslo.

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          Finally saw memento 🙂 and will just say – extraordinarily brilliant!! 🙂

          the film just sucks the viewer into the mind and pysche of the lead charcter lenny who has short term memory loss.you think like him,you act like him.it is brilliance.

          the film goes backwards in bits which have some clue in common ,much like how a though process in brain gets created by bits n peces having something in common.
          What an innovative way of directing!I am simply blown away!

          • Baba Ji 7 years ago

            hithere – i am not a big fan of non-linear story telling but in particular case of memento,the narration works big time because nolan makes the viewer go through the film via the mind of lenny,a guy whose mind goes blank every 10 minutes and he needs some evidence to remember what the earlier thought was and it goes like that.

            Also loved lenny’s way of dealing with his memory issue – by his routine,writing notes etc. As he says – memory is just an interpretation,can be distorted,not facts.

          • sputnik 7 years ago

            Glad you like Memento.

            I said similar thing in my Recco.

            “Reverse chronological order has been used in movies and even in an episode of Seinfeld before but this is the best use of it as it puts the viewer in the same state of confusion as the protagonist. “

          • hithere 7 years ago

            Even I don’t like nonlinear story telling but if presented in better way I am willing to see.

            http://www.filmannex.com/posts/blog_show_post/top-10-best-nonlinear-films/26995

  34. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Lenny/Leonard(Pearce) in a way gets Used by Teddy(the Cop), and due to some Circumstances & Misunderstandings, Pearce turns against him and Kills him.

  35. sputnik 7 years ago

    @hithere,

    Thanks for the list. I have not seen most of the movies mentioned there but Memento, Irreversible and Pulp Fiction are movies where the nonlinear thing worked for me.

    Saw this funny tweet on Nolan

    “They should have given the closing ceremony to Nolan. That way we’d never be sure if it ended or not. Or actually happened or not. #Olympics “

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      the boxer track of pulp fiction was an utter bore and needlessly added.

      • Suprabh 7 years ago

        I liked the boxer track..and the whole cab sequence.. The only portion that I didn’t like in PF are bits of Uma thurman-john travolta part…It became boring in that part. Rest all for me is a masterpiece.

        I became a huge fan of Samuel L Jackson after PF.

        • Baba Ji 7 years ago

          suprabh -the car sequence (the one with travolta and sameul) is very good.I also didnt like the Uma-travolta part.
          Sameul jackson is the star of PF .no questions there.

          Wasnt travolta going through a bad patch during that time?

  36. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Yeah Baba… Same fr me!

    That Boxer Track and Nonsense Thurman-Travolta Track are the Prime Reasons I dont like PF much and prefer IB & RD over it.

    I will Rewatch Oldboy ASAP.

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      i also prefer reservoir dogs to PF.The human emotion of criminals was better shown in RD than in PF.The opening breakfast scene itself is very engaging because of the dialogues.

  37. sputnik 7 years ago

    Congrats to Baba for this post. This is the first post on TQ to cross 100 comments.

  38. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    I said this when i first made this post and i will say this again.imdb and the whole west audience overrates their films. saw undisputed 3 and i am amused to see it has 7.3/10 on imdb.! wrote a review for it because i saw some mock comments on asian films there.

    rated the film 4/10 on imdb and wrote this:

    A wannabe over the top actioner

    cant say i am very impressed with undisputed 3.it is like those 100s of badly directed Hollywood MMA action films. Now we know in such films ,acting is not really a prerequisite but even by those stds, there was some serious bad acting and silly dialogues throughout the film. The climax is super-cheesy . it reminded me of the over the top bollywood actioners. So Hollywood can also be equally cheesy. I really cringed at that moment where there is a bad animation shown for a fracture of the villains leg. wont recommend this film!

    The Chinese ,korean and thai are still the best in action genre.Hollywood will continue to be a wannabe just like MMA is a wannabe muay thai.

  39. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    sputnik ,can you adjust this to start from 6.58?

    if this is not WTF, then no masala film is WTF

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      Done.

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        so what did you think of the scene? you found it effective? 😀

        if you watch the whole fight, the hero gets beaten to death and suddenly rises up like hrithik in agneepath. koi chi energy ghus jaati hai in logon mein

        • sputnik 7 years ago

          I was expecting more WTF stuff. I saw only from 6 min 58 seconds. You cant compare it with south masala. In South Masala one guy is kicked and ten guys fly.

          • Baba Ji 7 years ago

            for the kind of film it is or what it “promised” atleast ,that is WTF. his leg became a piece of rubber? that was some bad effect. and we dont take the south masala seriously .some folks on imdb take this kind of deepshit seriously.

  40. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    Thanks to sputnik for this scene. Please check this WTF scene from Golden eye. Bond jumps from a cliff and lands directly into the cockpit! 😀 so much for the so-called “slick” action in bond films.

    It also reminds us of that abhishek jump in dhoom 2 where he free falls and jumps straight on hrithiks back 😀

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=XjEwHBTf3qc

    • Shinji 7 years ago

      the difference baba, imo that music just after bond flies is out of the world!!

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        You saw that scene till the end? why do ppl make faces while applying breaks or changing gear of vehicles?does it help the vehicle move faster? 😀
        i have observed this in bw and hw films both

  41. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    I thought of posting this as PSOTD but it suits this thread as its a shootout scene. A cheesy shootout scene with a embarassingly OTT act from Al Pacino. WTF is he doing from 2.34? dancing like a retard LOL.

    i saw full film 3 years ago because of similarity in its story and my fav pc game GTA vice city. deleted the film after seeing its once because not only was the story of the video game better but even that tommy vercetti ,the lead animated character was better than al pacinos tony montana 😀 the makers of vice city were smart. they took some inspiration from scarface but the story is far more enteresting and tommy vercetti character is a knockout .he is intelligent and suave unlike the foolish tony montana.

    http://gta.wikia.com/Tommy_Vercetti

    Tommy Vercetti is depicted as both intelligent and temperamental, he is easily angered and quick to resort to violence. He has no hesitation about killing.
    Tommy Vercetti shows many characteristics in common with Tony Montana, a drug lord from the film Scarface. The two both end up in exile, both arrive to the city in Hawaiian shirts, both rise to power in Miami using great amounts of violence, both build an empire from a large estate and mansion, both have short tempers and are prone to violence, both work as contract killers, and both killed their collaborators and took their ex-bosses’ empires. The interior of the Vercetti Estate is even modeled after Montana’s mansion. There are, however, key differences, most notably that Tommy did not become addicted to his own narcotics and that Tommy survived the shoot out in his mansion, as opposed to Montana who was killed.
    Tommy Vercetti also bears some resemblance to ‘Mr. Blonde’ from the film Reservoir Dogs, played by Michael Madsen who also voiced Toni Cipriani, protagonist of Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. The film sees ‘Mr. Blonde’ released from prison after loyally doing time for his crime family, as Tommy did after the “Harwood Incident”. Tommy later performs contract killings for a ‘Mr. Black’, whilst he is referred to as ‘Mr. Teal’ (a reference to the then deceased Leo Teal). He also has a small resemblance to his voice actor Ray Liotta

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      Just before that scene his sister comes and accuses him of wanting her for himself and she tries to shoot him and gets killed by another man. He takes cocaine just before that fight and you want him to be calm and composed?

      This is a complete contrast to the Micheal Corleone character he played in The Godfather. You are expecting him to behave like Micheal Corleone in Scarface too.

      Anyways the movie is about excess. Tony Montana is a criminal and he brings about his own downfall with his hubris and taking drugs. Most criminals are eventually killed by other criminals or the cops.

      • Baba Ji 7 years ago

        i didnt like his character in scarface. he was stupid. i liked his role but didnt like his acting much in Godfather. Marlon Brando stole the show.

  42. sputnik 6 years ago

    Arnold Schwarzenegger Action Scenes from Commando

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=jQX0bz_X-M8

    • Baba 6 years ago

      seems arnold was the sunny deol of his times 😉 it is still better compared to what dharmendra did in mafia

      check 1:07:16

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=IcjzClD_1zs

      • sputnik 6 years ago

        LOL on that Dharmendra scene.

        Actually the scene immediately after the phone booth scene has Arnold pushing away and trying to get off 10/12 guys who are trying to catch him. It looked very similar to Sunny’s scene from Ghayal.

  43. Baba 5 years ago

    one of the worst things while travelling and living in hotels/hostels is when i am forced to sit on western toilets. i just hate it. i get creeped out at the very thought that someone laid his bareass on that same potty on whom i am supposed to it. the westerners were lazy. we arent. be proud to be an indin. build indian. use indian

  44. Baba 5 years ago

    songs copied by west from bollywood

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=sa7I1uoKr9E

    • sputnik 5 years ago

      Most of these songs are Serbian? Looks like they are quite influenced by Bollywood songs. But some of these are songs that Bollywood itself copied from elsewhere.

      Yeh Ishq Hai from Jab We Met (2007) was copied from Etre Une Femme by Anggun which came out in 2004.

      Dhoom Again (2006) itself borrows heavily from Mario Takes a Walk by Jesse Cook which came in 1996.

      • Baba 5 years ago

        dhoom dhoom of 2004 is borrower from this. dhoom again is different

  45. Baba 5 years ago

    Srks darr plagiarised in Hollywood called “Fear” and many more

    #HollyShit Episode 22 || World Copies Bollywood!!

    • sputnik 5 years ago

      Fear may have plagiarized bits of Darr but then Bollywood supposedly plagiarized Fear again as Aetbaar 🙂 Have not seen Fear or Aetbaar.

      Maine Pyar Kyun Kiya was itself supposedly plagiarized from Cactus Flower (1969) and Just Go with It is a remake of Cactus Flower.

      Two people meeting on a bus/train/plane/car and initially not getting along but then falling in love has been done to death and there are so many movies like that. They all can be traced back to It Happened One Night (1934).

    • mgt 5 years ago

      I checked out all Hollyshit videos after someone posted a link yesterday and they are so refreshing and have a great sense of humor unlike that crappy AIB humor.

      Hope this guy goes a long way and infact someone should hire him as he is hero material.

Leave a reply

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account