Clerks, honestly, what do you think?

[Jeremy Ordan]

Last night after watching the Panthers get completely destroyed I wanted something to laugh about. After spending some time going through my DVDs and finding nothing that I thought would make me laugh I decided to watch Clerks again for the first time in a year, maybe two or three.

Something hit me as I watched this film this time through that either I had forgotten or just not noticed... There are hardly any cuts. Everything is shot as a master shot with the camera just locked down and the actors going through their diatribe monologues as if on a collision course with idiosyncratic language.

I am curious as to what people think of this film, looking back on it, ten years after release...

Personally I think it shows that if you have an entertaining script, actors capable of delivering solid dialogue, and enough giggles that a film can succeed with no involvement from the camera. I'm curious what other people think of this approach.

[David Jimerson]

Kevin Smith may be the most successful director of all time who never moves the camera.

He says in the commentary that he rarely shot any coverage because he was trying something new. I think he was just nervous about it -- and I can understand that.

But I think his movies are all about idiosyncracies, and that's what makes them cult favorites. It's not about cinematic artistry.

[Filmjunkie677]

He's such a great, comedy, dialogue writer.... And that's one of the hardest things to accomplish, in my opinion. "Clerks" is hilarious.

"Chasing Amy" is such a good film.

I've also read his script for "Superman" and it was awesome.

[Draccan]

I stopped watching after Indy and Patriots got knocked off.. Dammit. Couldn't care less about the teams that's left....
Then again I am a 49ers fan and to slightly lesser degree Oakland so this is not the moment to celebrate ... :cry:

(Yes it is televised in Denmark - 2 games pr. sunday ...)

CLERKS.. haven't seen it yet and I am annoyed I haven't. It is high on my list of films I should see but didn't get around to (though that list is short haha)...

[uhrgl]

Kevin is a great writer. I'm not sure he's a great film director.

The first time I tried to watch Clerks in highschool, I couldn't sit through it on VHS -- it looked horrible. After I saw Mallrats (which is my favorite Kevin Smith movie), I had to go back and give Clerks a chance -- it's very funny. The Clerks cartoons are good too.

Has anyone seen Kevin's cut of Mallrats? I think it pales next to the theatrical cut.

The bottom line is that I don't think I find his self-referential style that charming anymore and I'm a little tired of his cash-in mentality. From watching J&SBSB, I know he'll probably show up at my door with Jay to beat me stupid with a baseball bat. Just know that I'm ready for you, mos.

[The Machinist]

I don't think he's a great director either. But then neither does he and he does not try to pass himself off as one. He knows his strength is in writing and dialogue so he sticks with that. Remember when he was attached to do the Green Hornet? I was very happy he bowed out cause I do not think he was capable of directing a project like that and apparently neither did he and thats something i gotta respect.

[Blaine]

Everyone was talking so much about Clerks that I watched a while back. Sorry, I hated it. I know he has a lot of fans that love his stuff and that's great for him and his fans...I'm just not one of them. That's one of the things that makes the movies great, there's something out there for everyone; plenty of choice so if you don't like one thing there is always something else. :thumbsup:


p.s. Didn't he give a boost to the careers of the next Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? :grin:

[The Machinist]

Didn't he give a boost to the careers of the next Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

Yes he did. And the thing about clerks that I've noticed is that it loses alot of its novelty with repeated viewings. I just dont find it as funny as i once did. And from what I've seen of clerks 2, it looks like the worst idea since Greedo shooting first.

[sonnyboo]

Having bought the 10 year anniversary DVD of CLERKS and watched it a few months ago, I must say that I have grown up a lot. It wasn't as funny or poignant as it seemed 10 years ago to me. I don't think it's the movie that changed as much as I have. I did not enjoy it was much, and laughed a lot less.

CLERKS' strength has always been it's writing not filmmaking or directing. No matter what, it was extremely well written and showed promise, which in some ways paid off (Chasing Amy, Dogma) and others not (Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back + Jersey Girl).

What do you think of CLERKS 2?

[ZFarms Productions]

i also have the 10 year anniversary disc and love it. the second disc is the original cut taken straight from hi8 tape that they shot it on. the audio is so crappy and so is the picture but its so funny still. it gives an authentic look to it. as for clerks 2.... i cant wait for it.

[J.R. Hudson]

I fall into the 'Kevin Smith is a hack' Club (More on this in a bit).

Clerks was a fun film. It was one of the first (maybe the 1st ?) to show 'My generation' in some dead end job and realizing we are screwed (I jest a bit; but hopfully you get my drift). With remarks about Star Wars , the honest vulgarity and sarcasm and showcasing an indiependent film; shot for pennies on video and 16mm. A film that was really about nothing and still made you laugh.

The film itself is shit as for as technical filmmaking goes. I haven't watched it in years myself but it is not in my favorites folder if that tell's you something.

--

As for Smith himself. This guy is just a hack filmmaker. It is astonishing and encouraging to see him at the level he is at cause it gives my hack booty some hope. Chasing Amy was another fun film that took on some real subject matter (I mean face it, who hasn't wanted that lesbian chick ?) but films like Mallrats, Dogma (One of the lamest poorest films I have ever seen), Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl and OH YIPPEE Clerks 2....

He's a hack and can't direct and should stick to writing. I would think that after 10 years he would have grown a bit as a filmmaker but it proves you need talent not just experience and that's something KS jus't doesn't have.

IMO

[uhrgl]

p.s. Didn't he give a boost to the careers of the next Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? :grin:

What are you talking about?

[Blaine]

What are you talking about?

http://cinematical.com/2006/01/11/damon-and-affleck-to-remake-butch-and-sundance/

http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt0118842/

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22179

[GenJerDan]

If I had seen Clerks first, I wouldn't have bothered with the rest. But I didn't. I saw Chasing Amy.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but Kevin is not a great writer, unless you're only talking about the situations/stories.

The dialog...? That's how we talk there. He just wrote down the kinds of things he heard around him.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

[uhrgl]

http://cinematical.com/2006/01/11/damon-and-affleck-to-remake-butch-and-sundance/

http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt0118842/

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22179

Thank god those are only rumors. That is my absolute favorite movie and I'm not sure my psyche could handle a remake with anyone else in those roles.

[the_fusionist]

I thought the movie sucked the first time I put it in the player. The lead character was annoying (pathetic) and the movie seemed to be going nowhere. I caught it on comedy central and started to like it. If I had watched it when I had it, I might not have worked two whole years in retail before realizing I had to go to college.

[Blaine]

Thank god those are only rumors. That is my absolute favorite movie and I'm not sure my psyche could handle a remake with anyone else in those roles.

The ONLY thing I didn't like about that movie was "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" :thumbsup:

[David Jimerson]

i also have the 10 year anniversary disc and love it. the second disc is the original cut taken straight from hi8 tape that they shot it on. the audio is so crappy and so is the picture but its so funny still. it gives an authentic look to it. as for clerks 2.... i cant wait for it.

It wasn't shot on Hi8. It was shot on B&W film.

[Luis Caffesse]

Apparently the 'First Cut' of the movie that is on the DVD set came off a SVHS dub of the movie -
which is where the confusion may have come in.

Like David said, it was shot on film (16mm B&W).


Here's a snipet from a review on NewsAskew.com (http://www.newsaskew.com/dvd/clerksX/)
Quality: Taken from the original SVHS that passed between all the critics and Miramax execs, for a "bootleg", this ain't too bad. As this is a full frame off 16mm, the presentation is not letterboxed at any way, and will run full screen on your television. Thus, you're seeing more material on the top and bottom of the screen than originally projected in this cut. Sound is also video quality, fairly muffled but loud and quite audible. Would this be the only copy of Clerks in this set, of course, we'd give it poor marks, but the fact that it's a second full length copy of the flick, and presented this way FOR A REASON, that can certainly be appreciated. Just let yourself be taken back to 1994 as you watch this, and remember a time when independent film was just starting to catch the notice of critics and audiences.

[J.R. Hudson]

Wow

I never knew that and now see where I too assumed it was Video.

Tks Luis

[uhrgl]

The ONLY thing I didn't like about that movie was "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" :thumbsup:

I love that part (I love every part of BC&TSDK), and I loved that tune in Spider-man 2 too.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I can say that I'm honestly a little surprised to hear everyone ripping on Kevin Smith. Personally I have always enjoyed his movies and the reason that I started this thread was to see, ten years after the release, how people interpret Clerks. I love this energy that has come up though. I am a huge fan of Dogma, mostly because as someone who went back to school to get an additional degree in religious studies, I appreciate Kevin dealing with his religious opinions in a more approachable manner than say Mel Gibson.

That being said, Clerks, in my opinion, is an extremely watchable film despite the fact that he has five minute shots of two people just standing there talking.
Now, to say that Kevin Smith is not a good director is something I actually disagree with. He is not a complete director, I agree with that, but he is very talented in motivated his actors to deliver the performance that he needs. My example: Ben Affleck (see my signature for my opinion on Affleck) is watchable and enjoyable in Smith movies. Point proven right there. I don't believe that Smith is experienced or knowledgeable with moving the camera, but I think that his written material overcomes that. He is an example of the whole geek chic thing. Star Wars, comic books, dick and fart jokes, getting high... I mean that sums up the majority of his work.
I think that Chasing Amy is a great film, Dogma is good, Mallrats is endearing as a sophomore effort. Jay and Silent Bob, well, yeah, sucked, but made me laugh. Jersey Girl? That was crap.

All things being equal though, I think he is a good writer. His Hollywood track record is solid, he has never lost a studio money (don't cite Mallrats, they made money off the DVD market).

Now Clerks 2, bad idea. I will most likely see it, but I think it's going to suck. I don't know why he's making it, but from watching the BTS stuff, yeah, it's going to suck.

And now that I have gone around my asshole to get to my elbow, I really do think that Clerks works in spite of itself. Jimmerson said something that I never thought of, but really rings more true than anything else (and also talks directly to me and my projects). Kevin Smith is afraid to move the camera. I really believe that his fear limited what he did with this project. If you look at the final scene where Dante is fighting with his girlfriend he tries to swing the camera back and forth between them, as if a third person is witnessing this, and it just doesn't work for the film. He likes the static shots either because of fear of moving the camera and messing up these marathon takes or because he is intimidated by the technical difficulties. Despite this, Clerks works in spite of it.

Why? I think because of the dialogue, it keeps you engrossed in the film and wondering what will happen next.

Then again, this is all just my opinion and what do I know (I'm intimidated to move the camera sometimes)

[spencer]

I think I watched Dogma first when my brother brought it home from Blockbuster. His description of "two angels trying to reenter heaven" made it sound like some weird drama, but boy was I excited to see that it wasn't. I really enjoyed it, and ran out and rented Mallrats.

Considering I was in 6th grade at the time, I think this was the right path. After seeing and loving it (please remember-6th grade), I saw Clerks and continued to enjoy his franchise. I was psyched for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (come to think of it, this was when I first got cable internet too, making this 12 month period a rather poignant time in my life) and, once again, loved it.

This was before I was converted by the likes of mainly Quentin Tarantino to the army of cinematic style. All I knew was that Smith's movies made me laugh and we're fairly good story wise. I feel that his films still for the time have a lasting effect on me, though my favorites have changed from Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob to Chasing Amy and Clerks (Dogma has always been in the middle). I don't appreciate his style of directing really, but his drive and his rather frank personality (you don't need to call Smith a hack, Hudson, he calls himself a hack or some variation of a hack enough times for everyone to know that he knows his limits), and I still can't get over a certain charm that all of his films retain. Chasing Amy isn't the funniest movie, but I'll be damned if it isn't one of my favorites.

It's a complex view I have on Smith. I really enjoy him, but can't explain why other than to say "He's funny." I never worked retail, wanted to hook up with a lesbian, and I certainly was never the basis for a movie that was receiving flack on the internet, but i can relate in a way. It's weird.


As for Clerks 2, I had major reservations when hearing about production. Smith started saying it was gonna be small, and funny, with no big wink wink cameoes a la his last couple of films and stuff. Then, all of a sudden it's blogs about Jason Lee, Ben Affleck, Wanda Sykes, and Kevin Weisman doing cameoes (I was never opposed to the casting of Rosario Dawson though)

Then I found out they weren't even working at the fucking Quickstop anymore. I thought that was the last straw.

Then, (I can't stand my fucking diction, I use way to many thens and ands) I watched this video : http://clerks2.com/movies/goodbadman560.mov

I thus decided to give the flick a second chance.

The teaser only solidified my beliefs that it will at least be enjoyable. The first thing I noticed was the considerable amount of grain and the low quality of the picture (I mean, not in a bad way, almost in a stylized way). The first thing I thought of was Chasing Amy, the awesome flick that Kevin made after the bomb that was Mallrats for a very miniscule sum of money. apparently this was made for only a small amount as well. Maybe he really is trying to go back into his roots and pull out another funny and poignant movie that the same generation that was appealed to in the first Clerks will get. In essence, maybe he has finally grown up.

But that's all a maybe, and I'll reserve judgement for the movie.

But I really cannot wait to see it.

[J.R. Hudson]

Nice take Spencer

You're right. I don't need to call him a hack; but then again, I'm just being kind.

[ZFarms Productions]

Apparently the 'First Cut' of the movie that is on the DVD set came off a SVHS dub of the movie -
which is where the confusion may have come in.

Like David said, it was shot on film (16mm B&W).


Here's a snipet from a review on NewsAskew.com (http://www.newsaskew.com/dvd/clerksX/)
Quality: Taken from the original SVHS that passed between all the critics and Miramax execs, for a "bootleg", this ain't too bad. As this is a full frame off 16mm, the presentation is not letterboxed at any way, and will run full screen on your television. Thus, you're seeing more material on the top and bottom of the screen than originally projected in this cut. Sound is also video quality, fairly muffled but loud and quite audible. Would this be the only copy of Clerks in this set, of course, we'd give it poor marks, but the fact that it's a second full length copy of the flick, and presented this way FOR A REASON, that can certainly be appreciated. Just let yourself be taken back to 1994 as you watch this, and remember a time when independent film was just starting to catch the notice of critics and audiences.

thanks. i thought i remembered it being on hi8. must have been mistaken. thanks for the info.

[spencer]

Nice take Spencer

You're right. I don't need to call him a hack; but then again, I'm just being kind.

It seems fair to call him a hack, because, well, he did make Jay and Silent Bob. But seriously, if my opinions were opposite of what they are, I'd still not push the fact that I think he's a hack, just because whenever I think of Kevin Smith being flamed, I think of the imdb message boards. Not just the Smith one, the boards in general. Jesus Christ... I mean... Jesus.

By the way, has anyone heard about this movie called Catch and Release? Smith's got a supporting role in it, and it seems like he's just being himself in the preview, but it's kinda cool to see him in something other than a trench coat or a bowling shirt. It does seem like a major chick flick (Jennifer Garner is the lead, and it's about her coping with her fiancee dieing and having to move in with his friends), and the whole movie is played out through the trailer, but I may see it just to see how Kevin does in a film that's not his. Just wanted to see if anyone has info on that and or opinions.

[ZFarms Productions]

i saw the trailer for catch and release. it doesnt look too bad IMO

[Luis Caffesse]

I saw Clerks in the theater - opening day.
I laughed, thought it was pretty damn funny overall - but as soon as I walked out my first thought was -
"man, if he can get THAT released then I've GOT to be able to get a movie out there."

FLASHFORWARD - Ten years later.

He's working on his 7th feature.
Me? I'm just now working on the script to my first.

Say what you will about the guys movies - he's gotten them done, they've made money - and he's still working.

You mentioned talent as being part of the equation John - I sometimes think that tenacity and perseverance might count for more.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of his movies, never have been. But I do respect the work he put in to getting himself where he is today. He made Clerks out of spit and polish, and it paid off.

[J.R. Hudson]

Luis

You are absolutely correct. Getting off one's ass and doing it is probably the biggest factor alone. I wrestle daily with my lazy armchair filmmaker arse ! That's the difference right there. There are people on this site that are really doing it and then there's one's like me who are doing nothing.

Spencer ---

The IMDB boards ? LOL Those boards are insane.

There isn't any flame going on here; just calling it like I see and my own personal opinion. I can come up with other words; the bottom line is that he makes poo pooe.

Laughingly the Jay and Silent Bob film is the reason to joke about; but really... and Dogma was just so bad it was painful to even watch

---

I read that Smith said "... his directing style wasn't really "visual" enough to pull off a big-budget action movie." in relation to THE GREEN HORNET and I thought of something Tarantino said on the Kill Bill V1 DVD about "...a director who can make a great action film is a sign of a good director." (I'll dig up exact quote tonight) because he thought that a really good action film is hard to do I suppose.

That kind of makes sense if you think of the great true action films and the directors behind them.

Let's face it:

Clerks was a fun indiependent film that turned heads and made a mark on cinema; but Smith never lived up that hype or potential. I can see where people like the idea and vibe of his Viewaskew universe and the whole Clerks stigma but how long can that be ridden ?

Apparently a decade at least

[Blaine]

I read that Smith said "... his directing style wasn't really "visual" enough to pull off a big-budget action movie." in relation to THE GREEN HORNET and I thought of something Tarantino said on the Kill Bill V1 DVD about "...a director who can make a great action film is a sign of a good director." (I'll dig up exact quote tonight) because he thought that a really good action film is hard to do I suppose.

That kind of makes sense if you think of the great true action films and the directors behind them.
I hope the operative word here is GREAT action film otherwise Michael Bay is going to think he's a good director. :grin: :grin: :grin:

[J.R. Hudson]

That an interesting point.

Now let's be real for a moment. Bay is a good director; he makes action films that are off the charts. Can we deny that The Rock, Armegeddon, Bad Boy's and Pearl Harbor are not solid ACTION films ?

His films do lack substance but what woud we get if he took himself more seriously and atttempted to come down to earth ? I bet he would deliver something nice if he would just slow down and give us something other than eye candy

[ZFarms Productions]

I can see where people like the idea and vibe of his Viewaskew universe and the whole Clerks stigma but how long can that be ridden ?

Apparently a decade at least

i dont know if you knew this, and i'm not trying to be smug or anything at all just fyi after clerks 2 he isn't doing the jay and silent bob movie. he's going on to do some other things.. no idea what they are but this is the last jay and silent bob movie... again just fyi. so after this he's going to try and get away from the clerks stuff...

[Jeremy Ordan]

I was agreeing with Hudson on every point until he mentioned that Pearl Harbor was a great film. C'mon, I wouldn't wipe my arse with that piece of shit, it would never get clean.

I like kevin smith, but have we seen him do anything that has really challenged him?

[Blaine]

That an interesting point.

Now let's be real for a moment. Bay is a good director; he makes action films that are off the charts. Can we deny that The Rock, Armegeddon, Bad Boy's and Pearl Harbor are not solid ACTION films ?

His films do lack substance but what woud we get if he took himself more seriously and atttempted to come down to earth ? I bet he would deliver something nice if he would just slow down and give us something other than eye candy

The Rock was watch-able as was at least the 1st half of The Island, but I can't go along with him being a good director. Adequate, perhaps. But there's a lot better action directors out there: John McTiernan, Richard Donner, Andrew Davis and Antoine Fuqua to mention a few.

[GenJerDan]

Then I found out they weren't even working at the poo pooing Quickstop anymore. I thought that was the last straw.


Well, it's now a video store & laundry & pizzeria. :grin:

http://www.genjerdan.com/private/Q.png

That's ok. It used to be Wasserman's when I would stop there on the way to school. Nothing ever stays the same.

[mule ferguson]

Go Panthers 2006!
Waiting for my HVX and the Panthers to go to the Super Bowl.
Which will come first?
The movie I did not see, but it sounds like a wonderfull idea. No cuts. Tell it like it is.

Mule Ferguson
Pumpkin Creek Video

[spencer]

John- I get it, I'm just in denial because I wanna live in a world where everyone likes everything I like. But that would get boring. Such a connundrum.

But what is it exactly that you didn't like about Dogma? As someone who struggles with religious beliefs a lot, I really liked the parts that would touch in on what seemed to be Smith's personal arguments on the subject, such as when Chris Rock explains that Jesus gets mad about wars in his name and how you should take a good idea and not turn it into something to fight about. I'm just curious to hear what you have to say in depth about it. I can understand the weirdness and strange characters, but you really couldn't find any redeeming qualities of the movie at all?

And dude, Ger, Quickstop isn't there anymore? I thought RST closed down, but the Quickstop too? DRAG.

[HorseFilms]

I find myself watching An Evening with Kevin Smith (a 2-disc set of speaches/Q&A sessions he made at various college campuses) more than anything else he's done. The man is hilarious in that. I'd recommend that set to anyone. The stories he tells are priceless.

[J.R. Hudson]

I was agreeing with Hudson on every point until he mentioned that Pearl Harbor was a great film.

I said it was a solid action film. Here is the quote:


Can we deny that The Rock, Armegeddon, Bad Boy's and Pearl Harbor are not solid ACTION films ?


So I guess we're back to 100% agreeance ? :laugh:


With Dogma, Spencer, I just found it a complete bore. Bad casting, bad filmmaking, bad execution, bad story. Just didn't vibe for me whatsoever. A complete mess.

To clarify (Blaine), I do not think BAY is a great director. He is more than adequate though and I'd even say he was better than 'Good'. Man's raked in $1,913,025,007 in 6 film's ? He's doing something right even if us 'artiste's don't think his films carry any weight. :lipsrseal :huh:

I will take John McTiernan or Richard Donner anyday over BAY however ! :thumbsup:

[Blaine]

John- I get it, I'm just in denial because I wanna live in a world where everyone likes everything I like. But that would get boring. Such a connundrum..

I think we ALL feel this way. I love the fact that we can disagree and still remain civil with one another, though. I also find it amazing that we can agree on so many films and directors and disagree on so many others. Taste is such an arbitrary thing.


Man's raked in $1,913,025,007 in 6 film's ? He's doing something right even if us 'artiste's don't think his films carry any weight.

I'd love to disagree with you on that BUT I use the same arguement with other directors/actors to make my points occasionally so I won't be a hypocrite. Box office DOES count for something. It's the democratic voice of the movie goer unlike the Academy Awards. :thumbsup:

[spencer]

That reminds me of what they did i think last academy awards, where they put a guy in a theater and had people ask what movies they saw. Most people hadn't seen the aviator or million dollar baby but thought taht White Chicks was hilarious.

Obvious editing there, but I still thought it was kinda funny, because it is true in some cases that the worst film rakes in the most cash.

I mean, the Fog, anyone? I actually sat through that movie. I contemplated getting up six times, which is four times more than I've ever contemplated that in a movie.

How terrible the Fog was. The effects even blew.

And yeah, John, again, I see where you're coming from. I hated the lead in Dogma. Big time. I like alan Rickman in pretty much anything, and the angels were fun at times, but it was really the religious debate that is obviously kevin going back and forth in his mind is really what did it for me, because that's exactly my views of religion.

[J.R. Hudson]

I do not have a religious background so I am sure it was lost on me ! (Catholicsm)

True about White Chicks. I think there's a interesting line between Box Office Reciepts and Critical Acclaim.

Look at some of the films in 2005's Top 50

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith
11 Hitch
12 The Longest Yard
16 The Pacifier
17 The 40-Year-Old Virgin
24 The Dukes of Hazzard
27 The Ring Two
36 Herbie: Fully Loaded
39 Bewitched Sony

These are films I cannot fathom even being seen much less in the Top 39

Yes films like these are languishing on the list

41 Cinderella Man
62 Syriana
66 Brokeback Mountain
70 Munich


I mean I know SW - SITH has a massive geek following; but let's face it, the last 2 sucked hard and SITH was like icing on SUCK. Still, it was number 1 on the year at 380 Million ? Monster In Law is 22nd on the year ? Dukes of Hazard at 24th ?

Yet we get Good Night and Good Luck at 99 ? WTF ?

http://www.wowow.co.jp/tennis/australian/from_og/images/players/john_mcenroe.jpg

You cannot be serious!

[Luis Caffesse]

Well you can't exactly take box office as an objective standard - I mean "Good Night and Good Luck" didn't get anywhere near the release of a movie like "Hitch" - so of course it's not going to bring in as much at the box office.

Then there's the fact that a higher budget film is probably going to bring with it a higher marketing budget.

It's quite possible that some of the films in the top half of the list actually made much less money than films in the bottom half. (for example - napoleon dynamite)

We can't just look at it as volume - you have to take into account the other factors and look at the big picture - of course then we're quickly getting into math, and well....
who want's to do math?

[J.R. Hudson]

Yes ofcourse; and I'm generalizing as always. Still, unsettling numbers at times.

[Luis Caffesse]

Still, unsettling numbers at times.

I agree - in fact for a long time I used to use the following phrase as a response
to my wife everytime she would complain about someone's stupidity:

"White Chicks was number one at the box office"

It quickly got shortened to simply - "white chicks"


Cut off on the freeway?
"How can people be so stupid!"
"White chicks"

Unhappy at work?
"You're not going to believe what my boss said today"
"Oh yeah? White chicks"


You get the point.
:thumbsup:

[Bigmagic]

The dialog...? That's how we talk there. He just wrote down the kinds of things he heard around him.

Thats part of being a a great writer. I love Clerks even though its technically flawed you can say that about a lot of directors first films. The fact that it is mostly one big master shot makes it all the more remarkable to me. Dogma is statement about his upbringing, like a lot of writers he's drawing on his life for subject matter. I hated Citizen Kane though its a technical marvel.(doesnt mean Orson sucks). I just don't like it.

I like movies like "Jersey Girl" and "Chasing Amy" perfect masterpieces, no enjoyable YES. I think Kevin is writing his generation, his world, what HE knows and is improving his abilities behind the lens. He had enough sense to have Tarantino and Rodriqez screen Clerks II. If you make enough movies your probably gonna make some that suck and some that don't.

Blair Witch is no where near as good as Clerks and made 150 million proving that box office means nothing unless your invested in it. For a guy who mortgaged his future(on his credit cards) Clerks is a wonderful little movie that had remarkable success.

[J.R. Hudson]

White Chick's

[Bigmagic]

John what time is it there? Its almost 2am here its past your bedtime youngun.

[Jim Brennan]

Horse, I agree about the Evening with Kevin Smith being the funniest thing he has done, but even that is a bit too self-indulgent. It's great if you are a fan of his films, but uneven if you aren't. Dick jokes wear thin after a while.

I never understood why Clerks made such a big splash. Was there so little going on in the cinematic universe at the time? I think Kevin is a funny guy; mostly in the way every high school has a guy that cracks people up, but that doesn't mean they are destined to be a stand-up-comic. I'd love to have him over for a few and shoot the poo poo. He's a capable writer (Chasing Amy proved that) But he spends too much time trying to be clever in the same way I also see Tarantino doing it. (Prepare for Rebuttal from Hudson). His dialogue sounds like conversations trying too hard to sound like real conversations.

And the acting in Clerks was beyond horrible. Granted, you work with what's available, but if you are supposed to be pulling for Dante, find an actor who isn't so whiny.

Chasing Amy is the best film he has done, but it wasn't great. I liked Dogma, mostly for the Catholic jokes (I am one) But he's a tepid director that relies on scripts that seem more like first drafts than anything that has had any real effort spent on them.

That being said, I give him his due for getting where he is. He (as mentioned) knows he's no genius. He just has fun with it while it lasts...which probably won't be much longer.

But he's welcome here for a cocktail anytime.

EDIT: Oh my God. I know I've been gone a few months, but has this site gotten so PC that I can't type poo poo?
EDIT AGAIN: Yep. I guess it has. That is friggin sad.

[Jeremy Ordan]

OK there are a couple of things here that I think need mentioning and I'm nominating myself to mention them.

First of all, the fact that Kevin Smith can get QT & RR to watch his movie doesn't mean anything to me. The fact that QT gives it a thumbs up doesn't mean anything to me. We're talking about a guy who publically states that Shaft in Africa is one of the greatest movies of all time. I like QT's films, but his opinion isn't going to make me change razors or change my mind from thinking Clerks two is a bad idea.

Second, box office does mean something, and at the end of the day this is what it means... Once you go Hollywood if you do not lose the people you are working for money you will get to make another film. If you lose the people you're working for money then odds are, unless you have a very established track record, you won't get to make another film. That is all box office means. Bay, he makes people money, he will always have a job. Kevin Smith, he makes people money, he will continue to work until he no longer makes people money. Clerks 2, well, he could risking a lot with this.

For me the appeal of Clerks was always in its low budget approach, but please don't tell me it is a great film because the guy got a bunch of credit cards and built debt up to make the movie. That's bull. I guarentee you that there are members on this site who have built themselves into a mountain of debt just to get a DVX and do their projects. To validate someone's work because they were able to have a beacon score above 700 to get 30K worth of revolving credit doesn't make someone an artist.

Now, that being said, I still maintain that Clerks was an enjoyable film 10 years ago when it was released and has had a good shelf life. It is one of the few films that although I know what is coming next, I enjoy watching it unfold. I think it gives hope to those of us who do projects with our friends but dream of bigger doors openning. The best thing about Clerks though is that Smith got off his ass and made it.

As I've said, Clerks works in spite of its meager cinematography, lack of camera movement, lack of quality sound capture, and poor acting. Clerks works because it is a film that perfectly captures a moment in time that a lot of people can relate to.

Another thing, QT was blown away by the fact that Clerks 2 picks right back up and you realize that these are the same two guys. He seemed entirely enthralled by that. I guess when you're a Hollywood millionaire little things like that can fuel you for a while. I have a friend who likes to watch flies hump, he thinks that's the funniest thing in the world. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go out and see a movie about it though just because he says that it's good.

[Jim Brennan]

I agree with just about everything you said Yankee, except the second to last paragraph. I think the fact that it captures a moment in time is why it was successful, but I submit that it still doesnn't "work" in the sense of being a good film. I realize that I am splitting hairs, but there are some films that I like for various reasons; Spring Break comes to mind (don't ask), I guess they "work" for me, but they don't really "work" in the sense of being well developed, well shot, well acted, well written films. They touch a chord with me, and in they sense that are successful (meaning other people felt he same way and they made a lttle cash), but that's where the train stops.

Nobody has ever shown me anything well done in the snse of craft in Clerks. The writing is undeveloped, the direction is uninspired, and the acting is amateur.

It was fresh, in it's way, and Smith's method of financing fueled the hype. I like the guy, but even if somebody I knew here in Colorado made it and showed it at the local film club, I still wouldn't think it was very good. Without the caveat of his unknown, amateur status at the time, and the way he paid for it, the film doesn't really stand on it's own as a piece of quality filmmaking. If somebody with a name and rep had made the movie, would anyone have even picked it up for distribution? At least Evil Dead was scary.

[Jeremy Ordan]

That is a good point. What would be interesting would be to look at the freshman indie releases of directors who are now somewhere and compare what they created with what they had available. Obviously, in this situation money to do the project has to be taken into account.

Kevin Smith actually only spent $8,000 filming Clerks, the rest was on the soundtrack.
Evil Dead I know topped the $100,000 marker.
Pi was made for a flat $40,000.
Blair Witch was made for what? $30,000?


I'm sure that there are a ton of other examples, but I still think that there is something that works about Clerks. Now I want to sit down and study it and see if I can find an example of what works...

[The Machinist]

i dont know if you knew this, and i'm not trying to be smug or anything at all just fyi after clerks 2 he isn't doing the jay and silent bob movie. he's going on to do some other things.. no idea what they are but this is the last jay and silent bob movie... again just fyi. so after this he's going to try and get away from the clerks stuff...

Kevin Smith said the exact same thing after J&SBSB. Then he made Jersey Girl and it tanked so he had to go back to the franchise and characters that made him famous in order to salvage his reputation.

I for one would still like to see the long fabled Clerks animated movie get made. I'm still a fan of the animated series and have commited the sole 6 episodes to memory.

[Jeremy Ordan]

Machinist, you have finally just described what Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino have in common, they are both full of fluff.

Kevin Smith has been talking for years about this Clerks animated film and even a Jay & Silent Bob Animated film. He has talked about a science fiction film that would have to do with comics coming true.

Tarantino on the other hand has talked about more Kung Fu films, the film about the Vega brothers, and about two hundred other films that he was going to make.

What they have in common is simple, they both come up with ideas and don't follow through on them!

[Luis Caffesse]

What they have in common is simple, they both come up with ideas and don't follow through on them!

How many of us have had a myriad of story ideas we never followed through with?

Smith has obviously followed through with 6 of his ideas - and is working on his 7th.
Tarantino has obviously followed through with at least 9 of his ideas - and is now working on his 10th (give or take).

Directors talk about possible projects all the time... it's impossible to make every movie.
Kubrick talked about Napoleon for most of his career - yet no one is accusing him of not having 'follow through.'

Personally I'm not a big fan of either Smith or Tarantino's movies - but to say they are unable to follow through with any of their ideas is a bit of a stretch.

[Jim Brennan]

Kevin Smith actually only spent $8,000 filming Clerks, the rest was on the soundtrack.
Evil Dead I know topped the $100,000 marker.
Pi was made for a flat $40,000.
Blair Witch was made for what? $30,000?


I'm sure that there are a ton of other examples, but I still think that there is something that works about Clerks. Now I want to sit down and study it and see if I can find an example of what works...

Well the original outlay for El Mariachi was 5K if I remember correctly. I know they dumped a ton inot it afterwards to make it look and sound better, but that happens with every film under those circumstances. So if we use the marker of cost as some sort of reversed exponential factor, it gets my award for best indie film. Not just because of how little it cost to make, but because it works as an action film. There is some bad acting and some cliches, but I can watch that as a film and say it's pretty good without having to know the pricetag.

I thought Pi was well done, but I got tired of the grainy black and white after a while. Still, a good movie.

Blair Witch was scary in places, but mostly made me nauseous

Evil Dead scared the crap out of me the first time I saw it, and I watch at least every other halloween.

[The Machinist]

Kubrick talked about Napoleon for most of his career - yet no one is accusing him of not having 'follow through.'

I will.

Kubrick that slacker! What's taking so long? I want Waterloo!


:evil:

[Luis Caffesse]

Alright - well I've been proven wrong.
There goes my point!
:grin:

[Jeremy Ordan]

The difference is, in my opinion, KS & QT are talking about these ideas in publications and promoting them like their next project. To compare it with the ideas I come up with while sitting on the toilet is unfair because: 1. I do not have the means of coming up with budget 2. I am not giving interviews to Variety about my next project.

I think the El Mariachi example is excellent. What RR did with his budget, means, and time frame is still incredible. I still believe that he is one of the most efficient directors working today, but he also came to Mariachi with a ton of experience. He had been shooting for what? 14 years? Maybe 13 doing his home movies and short films. The fact that he was able to make the leap to film and come up with a great project on a shoe string budget is impressive, though. How many of us feel that if we had $5000 cash, even with already owning our equipement we could do El Mariachi in that time frame and have it come off as well as RR made it happen? I don't believe that I could, but that says more about my ability or lack thereof.

Now, to bring this full circle, KS at least had an idea he believed it, went with it, and it worked out for him in spades. While it isn't as motivating as RR (KS had credit cards, RR got tests performed on him) the end products for both of their debut projects is extremely impressive. What appeals to me about KS is that you can see Hudson or anyone of us sitting down and writing a script we believe in, and just running with it. Clerks is like a DVXUser film, except I think most members here will move the camera more than KS did. He took something that he felt passionate about and ran with it. I respect that, and wish that I had the balls to take one of the feature scripts that I have sitting here and do the same. I don't though.

Maybe the best way for me to sum up my feelings about Clerks is that it was able to appeal to an audience because of its language routed in realism of life. Here are these guys in their 20's, they've dropped out of school or have school hanging over their heads, they date, they like to play hockey, and they have to go to these crap jobs they hate. Seems pretty universal to me and maybe that is why it appeals to me.

[Jim Brennan]

I would agree with that. Clerks does relate to a certain demographic.

I also respect KS for getting off his ass and doing something that most people only talk about.

[Blaine]

Okay, I'll stipulate that ANYONE who gets his/her movie distributed deserves at least the respect that they actually followed through on their dream and did it. Using the arguement that KS has made six movies on little budgets makes him a good director puts Roger Corman at the top of the heap. He directed 55 movies. Looking through the list, I can't see one that I'd rush out and buy. Hell, even Ed Wood Jr. directed 18 movies and is only known because Plan 9 From Outer Space is so notoriously bad.

I think a little perspective is in order. Sure, the movies were made and distributed but would we be having this arguement if it had been Corman's name or Wood's name or even Phil Tucker's (Robot Monster - even worse that Plan 9) on it?

[Bigmagic]

What kind of bull crap are we spouting. Not following thru....hmm how many ideas have we all had and not followed thru on. RR spent $7200 on Mariachi but it wouldn't have mattered if he spent ten cents. The real measure of a film or movie or video is if it communicates with an audience not if it meets our approval. Art was is and will always be subjective. I like Adam Sandler films and no I don't think he's Shakespere or Cassevetes but he hits home with some of us. Kevin Smith does the same thing. You can P&Moan about camera angles color correction or whatever but the art remains. Is the Mona Lisa or any piece of art any different. No they have all undergone scutiny lamblasting and the like in their day. If I say I like a film and you say its crap does that make you right and me wrong or me right and you wrong? No to both.

If you want to look at films from one narrow perspective than very few would measure up. Live and let live ultimately it is the art of our times like it or not.

[Josh_Boelter]

Interesting timing. I just read this on screenwriter John August's web site:


Do you think it’s bad for the movie, if the story, the screenplay and directing is being done by the same person?

– Karri Tahvanainen
via IMDb

Not if that one person is extremely talented. Some of my favorite movies come from writer-directors, who carried the project from conception to completion.

But there are certainly writers who shouldn’t direct, and directors who would be better off leaving the words to someone else. For instance…

No, actually, I won’t name names. But it’s not hard to think of a few examples.

It may be helpful to compare the attributes of a writer to the life of a director.

WRITER: works alone, sets own schedule, implements notes
DIRECTOR: works with crew, follows production schedule, gives notes

The job of a writer and the job of a director are fundamentally different, which is why so few people are great at both.

But I think there are situations where the writer is justified in choosing to direct his own material, even if he is a misanthropic slow-poke who has trouble communicating with others. Some stories have such a unique vision and voice, they can really only be told by one person.

For example, Kevin Smith often gets ragged on for his directing, and I think even he’d admit that his films don’t always look that great. His camera work isn’t inspired. His staging can be awkward. But the fact is, a “more talented” director couldn’t make a Kevin Smith movie. His films rely on a certain attitude and personality that only he can provide. Terrence Malick’s CLERKS just wouldn’t be the same.


Cheers,

Josh

[GenJerDan]

What they have in common is simple, they both come up with ideas and don't follow through on them!

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

For more info, please see the threads on Star Wars I, II, and III.

:grin:

[Blaine]

Art was is and will always be subjective. ... You can P&Moan about camera angles color correction or whatever but the art remains. ... If I say I like a film and you say its crap does that make you right and me wrong or me right and you wrong? No to both.
...
If you want to look at films from one narrow perspective than very few would measure up. Live and let live ultimately it is the art of our times like it or not.

I can agree with the art arguement. It is ALL art. Some bad, some good, undoubtedly more bad than good, but still art. I don't have to like someone's art but that doesn't negate the fact that it is art. Art by its nature is subjective. The old phrase, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldn't be more true.

[Jeremy Ordan]

See, this is what gets on my nerves, when people say that art is subjective therefore it shouldn't be debated. I went through a period where I liked performance art. Now, you might find someone copping a squat and crapping all over a stage to reveal the meaninglessness of life, but to me it is just some sicko crappy on a stage.

No one is debating whether these films are art. We're discussing what we think about it. Since we're talking about the subjective nature of our opinion regarding it, of course we're all going to have differnet opinions. That's what makes discussion great. We talking about opinions...

I like the comments in that interview about KS. It's true, a Kevin Smith movie by anyone else wouldn't be a KS movie. It's true, he isn't a great director (then again, he is the only person able to get a decent performance out of Affleck). It's true his writing appeals to a certain group.

If Clerks was released today, shot on DV, same movie, same actors, just released 10 years later, same story behind him making it, would the movie get any attention at all?

I don't think so, in my opinion.

[Blaine]

Well, now. I won't deny the fact that KS makes art. It's just bad art. :)

[Jeremy Ordan]

Well, now. I won't deny the fact that KS makes art. It's just bad art. :)

In your subjective opinion:evil:

[Blaine]

In your subjective opinion:evil:

Absolutely. :thumbsup:

And we all know what opinions are like...we all have one. :grin: :grin: :thumbsup:

[Jeremy Ordan]

Absolutely. :thumbsup:

And we all know what opinions are like...we all have one. :grin: :grin: :thumbsup:

And if you currently live in Hollywood I hear the IN thing to do is to have yours bleached

[Blaine]

And if you currently live in Hollywood I hear the IN thing to do is to have yours bleached

Oh, man. I could have lived without that image. :beer:
It'll take :beer: :beer: to wash that image away. :grin: :grin:

[J.R. Hudson]

What a great thread !


I have a friend who likes to watch flies hump, he thinks that's the funniest thing in the world. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go out and see a movie about it though just because he says that it's good.


you might find someone copping a squat and crapping all over a stage to reveal the meaninglessness of life

LMAO. These both made my morning Yankee. Where can I find QT's take on Clerks 2 ?


That is a good point. What would be interesting would be to look at the freshman indie releases of directors who are now somewhere and compare what they created with

This for me is a huge issue; whether or not a filmmaker matures and shows artistic growth, again, something Smith has not done yet. His films wreak of lacking directorial talent whereas directors like QT, RR, PJ have shown quantam leaps in artistry

---

And QT does have a peculiar taste (Yeah, even horrible) in films; I love QT (Possibly my favorite). Someone sais drecently he was 'The Bastard Child of Cinema' or something; I agree and it's a good thing. People that don't dig Tarantino or 'Get him' distress me.

[Tony D'Amato]

http://www.clerks2.com/

And then you go down until you find "the good,the bad and the man"


What about Jersey Girl?

[Filmjunkie677]

here's the direct link

http://www.clerks2.com/movies/goodbadman560.mov

[Jim Brennan]

I think the problem with the writer/director is a lack of conflict. SOmetimes great things come from the triangle of hell between the writer, director and producer. When you have someone like Smith, Tarantino, Anderson or Rodriguez, you find something in common: They are one trick ponies for the most part. Now how well they do that one trick is not what I am debating, but very few (and I can't think of any to be honest) writer/directors seem to evolve very much until they collaborate more. QT turned the world upside down with Pulp and Reservoir Dogs. But my favorite film of his is Jackie Brown, probably because he didn't write it. Smith's films outside of the J&SB mythos largely fail. Probably because it is that mythos and it's relatability that sustain his fan base; not some inherently great quality of his writing. I have heard by those more initiated into RR's work that Sin City was the best thing he has done (I stll haven't seen it) Well, he neither wrote that, nor was he the driving force behind the look of it. I'm not trying to take anything away from these guys, but it's hard enough to do ONE THING well.

I just think that some of these guys fill their world with sycophants, when true creativity comes from being challenged, not by following your whims. That doesn't mean you shouldn't stick with what you are good at, but you should try to expand and improve it.

[Blaine]

QT turned the world upside down with Pulp and Reservoir Dogs. But my favorite film of his is Jackie Brown, probably because he didn't write it.

Jackie Brown is my favorite, too, but he DID write the screenplay with a couple of big changes from the book, Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard. :thumbsup:

[The Machinist]

Elmore Leonard wrote the novel upon which Jackie Brown was based however QT did write the script for the movie. I feel it shows in the dialogue.

[Filmjunkie677]

And that entire multiple POV SEQUENCE. Thats's QT all the way.

[Blaine]

I feel it shows in the dialogue.

The dialogue is classic QT. :thumbsup:

[Blaine]

And that entire multiple POV SEQUENCE. Thats's QT all the way.

Actually, he got that from Kubrick in "The Killing". I saw him talking about that in an interview one time.

[Jim Brennan]

I realize that QT wrote the script, but (being a huge Elmore Leonard fan) the feel of that film (from a writng standpoint) is overwelmingly Leonard (who has built a carreer in no small part because of dialogue...which was a major influence on QT). I think that's why it didn't do well; people thought it would be more like a Tarantino film. What they got was Elmore Leonard through QT's eyes.

Although the best Leonard based film I have seen is Out Of Sight.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I love this board, this conversation, as subjective as it is, have really grown into something that will yield some great findings (at least I think so).

In my opinion QT's best work is what he has not directed, but rather written. I prefer his Natural Born Killers & True Romance scripts to anything he has done. They wreak of QT's wit and interests of the time, but at the same time, they actually have these great characters and sequences of events that you can see just spawning in his mind. The difference between these works and his personal films is that when he hands his stuff off to someone else they create brilliance out of it. Now, I'm not saying that I don't like QT. R.Dogs & PulpF are great films. Jackie Brown has a place. His submission in the 4Rooms project was great. KillBillVol1&2 are entertaining. It's the other stuff that does it for me though.

Now to Kevin Smith, well, Kevin has grown a lot. If you look at the leaps and bounds that he made from Clerks to Chasing Amy (I'm leaving out Mallrats for a reason I will make in a moment) you see someone who has taken an idea and fully realized it. The story grows in complication, quality of acting, camera movement, location choices, dialogue maturity, ect. Here are two indie films seperated only by a studio picture and a couple of years, and you can see him mature as a filmmaker.

Is his growth as significant as what QT did between Dogs & Fiction? Not by a long shot. I think that QT was a student on the set of Dogs and applied that knowledge to Fiction. Smith, well, maybe he is the slow fat kid in class, but he has still advanced his filmmaking.

Regardless of what you think of Dogma from a concept or a finished product, it is still yet another example of him maturing. J&SBSB, well, that's what happens when you get Hollywood $ and want to use it all with your star f&#!er mentality. Get as many people who are famous as possible and put them all in your movie. Still, technically he improved between the projects. Jersey Girl, well it was so bad in a 2000 flashback to a John Hughes film sort of way that I was too busy trying not to vomit on the people in front of me that I didn't notice anything dealing with his technical advances.

That all being said, RR improves, advances, and matures the most of these three from project to project. A lot of people knock RR for his quick shooting style, and his lack of coverage, but here is a man who has a vision and executes it. I've heard that he is the hardest director to work with because he doesn't communicate well and would rather just do it himself rather than explain what he wants done, but in a way I respect that.

Ultimately, we all say it, and most of the time we believe it, filmmaking is collabrative. QT, KS, & RR aren't collabrative filmmakers. They each like their vision and want to deliver it. RR I think has the most range in what he is able to deliver. QT has the greatest ability to influence, shock, and awe. KS has the greatest ability to make us root for the little guy. QT can be given hundreds of millions. RR will be given tens of millions. KS will need just a couple of millions.

From a director point of view, I like QT, RR, then KS
From a writer point of view I like QT, KS, then RR
From an artist point of view RR, QT, KS
From a fan point of view KS, QT, RR
From motivating the best performance I put KS,QT, RR

They are all interchangable. I can't see a Kevin Smith movie saying 'its the one that says bad mother f&%#cker', but then again I can't see a QT movie saying half of the jibberish that KS makes his people say.

At the end of the day, these are three people who got a huge break and have run with it. I think they all have their own place, but the real question, the one that will keep us all up at night has got to be, why didn't KS change camera angles at all during clerks?

[J.R. Hudson]

I find it hard-pressed to even mention Kevin Smith in the same breath as RR and QT.

It wasn't until I saw SIN CITY that I came to really like RR. Prior to that it had been more a fan of his Spirit of Cinema (Support of the wannabe filmmakers) and not his body of work. As much as I loved From Dusk Till Dawn it has a very rudiementary visual style and it's the Screenplay (Dialogue) I like more than anything (Thanks QT) and Once Upon a Time was refreshing considering I thought the franchise died with Desperado (Which I didn't terribly like)

But how can we even remotely put SMITH into the same category ? I have recently been watching the KILL BILL Volumes (My own film school routine) and it is genius. Leaps and bounds over RR and QUANTAM over Smith.

In watching the Trailer for Clerks 2 it still wreaks of shite visually. It looks like something 'We would do'. If there is any growth I ain't seeing it.

There's no way we can mention Smith in the QT breath. RR, yes. But not Tarantino.

I also have to disagree on who is getting the best performances from thier talent. QT all the way !

Uma, Sammy Jackson and Travolta were all nominated for Oscars, Robert Forster was nominated in Jackie Brown. I can't say that becasue Affleck doesn't suck " as much " in Smith films that he's motivating the talent.

What performances even compare to anyone in Smith's film's ? The peformances in DOGMA were atrocious.

[Cpt. Shiner]

I'm with Hudson on this. I don't even think Smith is much of writer. His liberal use of crude humor for shock value gets old quick.

[Jim Brennan]

I think the point of the comparison is more about their working style (as writer/director) than anything else. Which, is a valid comparison.

I like QT, but (IMHO) I think that Kill Bill is the prime example of someone left to his own devices, and gone amok. It's self indulgent. It has good stuff in it, including some of the performances. I own both films and have watched them repeatedly. (although i doubt as much as Hudson :) ) But I think if someone could have sat down and streamlined the story arc, and cut some of the wink-wink dialogue, it would have been a better film. It works as it is, because it is a QT film. ANybody else puts out a film like that and they would be called a self-absorbed egotist. But I realize that millions of people love it. And if you set a kid loose in a candy store, he'll fill his pockets, which is what QT does. I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing. But I hold to my opinion that there is an advantage to the creative friction that exists between a writer and director. It distills things down to the necessary core.

EDIT: and for full disclosure sake, I often work as a writer/director. So I don't always take my own advice :beer:

[Josh_Boelter]

To add to vjbrennan's comments about Jackie Brown, that may be the only Elmore Leonard book Tarantino has filmed, but you can hear Elmore Leonard in all of Tarantino's flicks, in my opinion. The "Royale with Cheese" scene in Pulp Fiction is so reminiscient of Leonard. I don't say that as an insult; I don't think QT was ripping off Leonard, but I think he was definitely influcenced by him (especially his dialogue). Nothing wrong with that. That's pretty typical of artists earlier in their careers. You can hear a lot of Coltrane's influence in Branford Marsalis's early recordings too.

As for Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Smith? I like them all; some flicks more than others.

Cheers,

Josh

[Jim Brennan]

QT will gladly and proudly cite his Leonard influence. Much of the feel of his characters and the pace of his dialogue stems from true pulp fiction (no pun intended)

[J.R. Hudson]

Elmore has definately influenced Tarantino but let's not start handing out all the credit to him. I think QT's influences by and large run the gamut from films and novel's to music and other pop culture

I haven't read Rum Punch but am going to pick it up and do a comparsion for my own sake; stay tuned for that review.

Did you know QT didn't know Pam Griers character (Jackie Brown) was a white chick until after Grier was cast ?

[Jeremy Ordan]

Hudson,
99/100 I agree with you, but on this time I have got to disagree. Why? Affleck sucks. I mean if you can get the guy to even be somewhat believable that is like having the dead walk, turning water to wine, or walking on water. It takes a director with diety like skills to get a performance out of him. Can I think of another example? No. Do I need to? No. C'mon, Ben Affleck? He's so bad. Smith makes him not that bad.

Now onto the serious points. I think that QT is a good director and a great writer. Both he and Smith have a lot in common, they are both writer/directors who have their own unique style. You hear the dialogue in a QT or KS movie and you know its a QT or KS movie. They both came in as Holywood outsiders, and both have worked with some amazing talent. Maybe that is where the expectations end.

For the mass of audiences, QT hit his peak with Pulp Fiction and everything since then has been a disappointment. I personally disagree, but everyone wants another Pulp Fiction. I respect QT that he went onto do 4 Rooms & the Kill Bills, not to mention Jackie Brown. That being said, I think that we're still waiting to see QT hit his real peak.

Can the same be said for Kevin Smith? Was Clerks his peak? Was Chasing Amy his peak? Kevin Smith is a fun film maker, his projects will never be Doctor Zhivago or anything close to that. His witt is very sharp, he's funny, and he has that every man mentality that appeals to people. He's the ultimate underdog to root for. QT, he's just too cool for school and he knows it... That's my problem with QT, he believes his own hype, but he has yet to disappoint.

Anyone who said that it didn't take big balls for QT to follow up Pulp Fiction with Jackie Brown is cracked in the skull.

I respect him. The reason for the analogies and drawing comparisons between the two is to analyze directors who have indie roots and see how they have progressed.

I think that RR has grown a ton. I think QT has grown more. As I said, KS is just that fat slow kid in class. Over his projects (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, & Jersey Girl) he has grown as a filmmaker, but as much as QT or RR? No. Not even close.

I do believe that with Clerks any member on this board could make that film, but I think that is why I chear for KS. He has this ability to make films that people can and want to immitate. Isn't the greatest form of flattery imitation?

At the end of the day though, when we have debated until we can type no more who influences your style as a filmmaker more?

I know you're going to say QT or RR. I respect those choices and wish that I can say the same, but the truth is I'm more influenced by KS. The reasons why, I like dialogue pieces (which QT has moved further away from with Kill Bill 1 & 2 and RR was never a very big fan of) and my camera skills are still developing. On the few times I take risks with my projects I love the results, but they are few and far in between.

What does this tell you? It tells you that maybe the reason I like Kevin Smith is I consider myself where he once was as a filmmaker when he made Clerks. In fact, my observations, now that I think about them, especially in relation to how I view Clerks, is much more revealing about myself as a filmmaker than as KS as a filmmaker.

Honesty hurts sometimes, doesn't it? Yeah, it does. Wow, I need to rewatch some QT movies and start to imitate him or else I'm never going to get better....


EDIT:

By the way, after looking back through this thread and my replies I want to apologize for being more than a little verbose with my posts. I have an English degree, so there's not much I can do with it other than make posts that are way too drawn out. Yes, I am becoming the resident rambler, sorry!

[Jim Brennan]

QT is a master at distilling pop culture influences into his films. He mixes them up and comes out with a very unique voice. But he's elemental in a way, like a force of nature. I think that passion and talent can be harnessed in way that would create better films in the broad sense. But then we would lose the QT film, which would be sad. I guess you could say the same about any unique writer/director (whether they suit your taste or not). We need some individual voices.

I guess it depends on whether you think it's more important that you sing the song your way, or sing it the best way you can.

[J.R. Hudson]

This has been a wonderful exchange of opinion.


I think that QT is a good director and a great writer.

For the mass of audiences, QT hit his peak with Pulp Fiction and everything since then has been a disappointment

I keep hearing this; Great Writing / Good Director. Great writer / Good Director.

Have you even seen his films ? (I'm jousting) :lipsrseal To me, Pulp Fiction alone is the mark of a great director and a sophmoric effort at that !

I do see your point, however... PULP FICTION was nominated fo 7 Academy Awards. It won Cannes. To say he hasn't hit his peak is kind of high expectations isn't it ? What are we waiting for? The $300 Million Dollar Popcorn film ? I would like to see his return to Oscar road of course but I would'nt say it's been disapointing. How ? What would make it NOT disapointing ?

I have heard countless times that Jackie Brown is arguably considered QT's best work (Critical Acclaim). Both Kill Bill's were made for $30 Million each (oaky okay, filmed at the same time and then split!) but combinded have grossed $ 333,000,000 Worldwide. THe KB films are indeed indulgent but damn if they're not QT in the Zone.

The House of Blue ORchard / Crazy 88 / O Ren Ishii sequence alone is true cinematic skilly and not simply from a Good Director !

My only problem with Tarantino is that I wish he made MORE films; like Spielberg. I hate waiting. :undecided :grin: I can honestly say that I am not waiting for another PULP FICTION.

I'm with you on my own self realization as a filmmaker. :( For me I see being able to do either an El Mariachi or a Reservior Dog's as far as technical prowness is concerned (That may be wishful thinking but I'm not saying it cockily as in I CAN DO THAT. I just see being able to pull it off).

I can write (although don't do as much anymore) but do not proclaim to have to wrtiing skills of QT or KS.

Didn't we recently talk about this; the ones that actually do it compared to my arm chair ass ? Okay, Im going to cry now.

[Jim Brennan]

I would have to say that QT gets higher marks from me as a director than a writer John. In fact that is his main strength.

I do like his stuff, don't get me wrong. I couldn't sleep for almost 36 hours after Pulp Fiction. No other film ever did that to me. He tells GOOD stories in an interesting, almost magical way. It's the delivery that makes his films what they are, far more than the raw material. I guess I just imagine what it would be like if he took GREAT story and told it with his directorial vision. But maybe then the bar would be set so high, we'd all burn our DVX's in a big bonfire.

[Blaine]

It is always too easy to put it off and find excuses not to do it. But that's just what they are...excuses. At some point you have to tell yourself, I'm going to do it and do it now. You can look up and ten years have passed and you're still talking about doing it. That's where I was. Don't wait till you're 53 to make your first movie. Get out there and do it. There's NEVER going to be a better time than now.

[J.R. Hudson]

You ain't kiddin Blaine. My wife recently told me I needed to schedule a minimum one day a week devoted to filmmaking as I was bitching about the days inthe week that are not there. It's true, just do it (damn Nike was right !)

VJBrennan

Yes yes yes

I always think of True Romance. I love True Romance but it would be a completely different film without t Scott's Glossy Howood look and if QT tackled it.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I agree that QT's greatest strength is his writing, and I will say that same for KS (although his appeal is much more limited than KS').

That being said let me go back to my comment about QT hitting his peak. With the term peak I meant that he has hit the highpoint of his filmmaking ability regarding direction as well as storytelling (since these are writer/directors we're talking about).

I don't need QT to deliver me a summer blockbuster of epic proportions, but I want to see something from him like what he did with Kill Bill but more. I want to see something that you walk away from scarred for a long time. I want to see him bridge his dialogue, actors, and uncanny eye for the elements hidden just below the surface of society to the forefront in a way that will forever change QT from being an afterbirth of an artist to a true artist.

I think that he is one of the most talented people working in Hollywood right now, and I can honestly say that when I see 'directed by QT' I will go out and rent or buy it. That being said, I don't think that Pulp Fiction was him hitting his peak. I think it is a stepping stone as he continues to mature. If you look at the filmmaking differences from Pulp Fiction to Jackie Brown he learned a lot and grew a lot. If you look at Jackie Brown to Kill Bill, the man has continued to grow and expand his circle of influence and ability to relay a story. He continues to grow.

KS on the other hand grew from Clerks to Chasing Amy. From that point he seems pretty stagnant.

My point about hitting a peak... well, I think the peak of Hitchcock was Psycho. He took everything he knew and applied it to this almost indie film. From that point, it was sort of downhill, he didn't pave any new paths or continue to grow.

I personally do not believe that Spielberg has delivered his difinitive work yet, while I think that Schindler's List was close, and Munich even closer, I just don't think we have seen everything he is capable of in one film.

Unfortunately, I think that Lucas peaked way too early. Same thing with a lot of these pop directors.

Here's an interesting comparison though. Look at the similarities between Kevin Smith and Paul Thomas Anderson.

Kevin Smith had something personal to say in Chasing Amy. PTA had something personal to say in Magnolia. Both elicited great performances from their actors. Both put together great films. Both films have a lasting impression on you....

Why do we not put PTA in the same sentence as KS, QT, or RR?

EDIT:

How the hell did this thread get so long and yet no erupt into:
a. name calling
b. flaming
c. baiting

EDIT #2:

My above edit comment about this thread not errupting made me want to quote Keitel from Pulp Fiction "Let's not start sucking each others d!cks just yet gentlemen" Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Jim Brennan]

I think his strength is directing, not writing.

And what about Wes Anderson? Where does he fit into this spectrum?

Flaming loses it's bite when you can only call people a fuck face or a shit head :)

[J.R. Hudson]

a. name calling ?
b. flaming ?
c. baiting ?

A Common Thread ? (Pun) Amazing it has stayed so civilized. Whoa. :thumbsup:

BTW that last take of yours is epic. Nice one. I 100% see your point and can 100% agree.

As for PTA

I loved Boogie Nights. I enjoy Magnolia but do not obsess over it like other's seem to and the whole FROGS falling out of the sky just doesnt do it for me. That completley removed me from the entire world that was created and in fact sorta just ruins the whole picture in the end.

Maybe someone can explain it tom e; but it just crosses over into too much abstract surrealism for my tastes and came across as more a cop out than a true tie-up for the end.

That is too bad as I think it tops filmmaking (Incredible acting, editing and camerawork) up until this part. True cinamtic art. But What the poo poo; frogs ?

I have yet to see Punch Drunk.

Wes Anderson ? Definate style. Not on my favorites list. Maybe a bit too whimpy for me. But still brings something to the cinematic table.

[Blaine]

I'd like to see QT quit with this genre kick he seems to be on, making something for every genre. His 1st three movies showed growth and laid a solid foundation for things to come then BOOM! he seemed to go off track. Fine, he's paid his homage to others now it's time to be himself.

As for his writing. It's poetry. It's stylized life. If I want to hear how people really talk I'll listen to my daughter (23) and her friends. I can only take so much of that :grin:

I have to agree that RR is all about motivation for me. That and digital.

Sorry, KS just doesn't do it for me. :undecided

They're just opinions but they're MY opinions :thumbsup:

[Jeremy Ordan]

All of this is only opinion, and I think thats why it works.

I think that QT captures how people talk, just as I think that KS captures how people talk. QT's people are just more in tuned with a certain aspect of pop culture than most.

Then again, Kevin Smith's characters are pop culture junkies also.

All I know is that Mr. White would blow Silent Bob's brains all over the sidewalk if they ever met in real life.
I'm with John on PTA though. I loved Magnolia and thought it was Tom Cruise's best performance. I thought it was everyone's best performance until those damned frogs. I've read all this stuff with different theories beyind it, but honestly, it still doesn't make sense. At the end of the day I'm watching this long film that has completely engrossed me and fucking frogs fall out of the sky. What kind of crap is that? C'mon, don't create this incredible real world with characters who are flawed top to bottom and you feel for them, and then give me falling frogs.

Punch Drunk is like Magnolia, and you can see that his filmmaking style hasn't changed much. In the case of PTA I would have to say that Boogie Nights was him at his peak. Since then I don't think he's grown at all. Remember the long steadicam shot in Boogie Nights where he sees his wife in bed with a guy on new years, walks out to the car, gets a gun, walks back into the house kills them, comes out and kills himself. That is a great sequence with one shot.

Unfourtanately, KS never reached this level of vision with any of his projects. If KS is going to have a long take like that you can bet that the camera wont move during it.

Then again, I like KS.

Maybe the biggest problem with KS & QT is that in addition to writing and directing their movies they also cast themselves in the projects. I know for KS he has said that he wanted to be in it so that in 10 years when he is still paying off this movie that cost him his credit he could at least say that he was in it, and then that sort of morphed into him always being that character. For QT, well, I like him as an actor. He was great in Resevoir Dogs (of course he gave himself one of the best monologues), Pulp Fiction, and I liked him in From Dusk to Dawn. I can also say that he is the only white man that can use the N word and get away with it.

I don't remember what the point of the point I was going to make was... But it gives you something to think about none the less

[Blaine]

All I know is that Mr. White would blow Silent Bob's brains all over the sidewalk if they ever met in real life.

Now THAT is funny. And what about Mr. Blond? :thumbsup:

(I WOULD like to see that Vega brothers movie.)

[Jim Brennan]

I'd like to see KS write a script for someone like Steven Soderbergh. Soderbergh hands it back and says "Nice first draft, here are my notes" He hands him back something the size of a telephone book. "Call me when you're done"

That goes on for 18 months. Then we'd have a great movie written by Kevin Smith.

[Jeremy Ordan]

See, this is what I'm not understanding. I have no problem with KS' scripts. With the exception of Clerks, can you give me an example of where you thought a script could use tightening or reworking? I am just not seeing that.

[seejay1031]

That is too bad as I think it tops filmmaking (Incredible acting, editing and camerawork) up until this part. True cinamtic art. But What the poo poo; frogs ?

To me, the frog sequence is one of the greatest scenes in recent film history. It is a tie back into the opening sequence- which is a snappy series of short actual events that defy logic and probability. The frog's are the major event in the film which also defies logic and probability... but it did happen. It is the forces of our lives which we can't control, which drive us apart or bring us together. It is the moment when all of these pathetic characters are ripped out of their self obsessed lives and are forced to deal with the now, not who did what to who, or how they will carry on, but reaction to an unbelievable event. I think in some ways it is self conscious nod to the improbability of the entire film (the aha's of the film, and indeed all multistory films, such as Short Cuts or Crash). The key to the entire sequence is that this event actually happens, or to quote the young quiz kid, "This happens, this is something that happens.” Indeed, occasionally tornadoes do suck small frogs by the thousands up into the atmosphere, where they rain down somewhere else. One last note- you have no doubt noticed the multiple references to Exodus 8:2- which is the frog curse of Egypt. Therefore P.T.A. very much considered this an integral part to his story.
-Chris
P.S. When googling to check my facts in the above paragraph I came across this article which is specifically relates to the frog scene. It is quite good.
http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=96_0_2_0

[Jim Brennan]

Yankee,

It's more a question of uninteresting. Chasing Amy was good, but like Tarantino, his dialogue (IMHO) tries too hard to be clever. Dialogue should first and foremost serve the story, not be what the story is about. Dogma was his best attempt at something interesting (meaning it had to do with more than people standing/sitting/laying around jawjacking), and I think a rewrite with a better director would have made a good film. I liked it, but as I said in an earlier post, I'm Catholic, so i get a lot of it. I'm not sure who else does. Jay and SB had some funny bits, but it wasn't really a movie. It was a bunch of skits, barely held together with a tenuous (at best) thread of a through line. Mallrats was the same way. Just goofy ideas, with semi-humorous characters strung together for effect. There's not much of a story in the dramatic sense. (Yea, I know it's a COMEDY, not A DRAMA....you know what i mean)

[krestofre]

I've been following this thread all day and I think one of the most interesting points that it brings is the fact that we are discussing this. It seems to me that this is one of the core points that the independent film movement has brought to the table. In a lot of cases we're looking at people who are still learning their craft (RR perhaps a little less than KS or QT). I don't think filmmaking really had that angle before now. For the previous generations of filmmakers, most of these issues were worked out in film school. You see tremendous growth in Spielberg if you watch The Sugarland Express and compare it to Saving Private Ryan, but it's not the kind of growth when you look at Res Dogs vs. Kill Bill.

Now we have to deal with this in a very real light. For myself, I decided that my first attempt at filmmaking was going to be a complete plunge and I dove right in to a feature length project. No shorts or anything else. Did it work? Well, it's still in post, but it's coming together. Was it perfect? No. Is my Sci-Fest entry at a higher level of acheivement? I think so. And that's the natural progression of things. We get better as we practice our craft. It's just interesting that for most filmmakers just coming on the scene now, that craft is being learned in front of an audience, and I'm not entirely sure that's the best place to learn. Imagine where RR would be if his first film broke out, instead of his having the practice of 30ish films before shooting El Mariachi.

Interesting questions to ponder....

[Jeremy Ordan]

Two great posts. The whole frog thing, I think he just over thought it and it doesn't work for me at all. I got all the biblical references, the scientific data, even a prophecy, but you know what? It pulls me completely out of the movie and gives me just a WTF moment.

I think that the learning in front of an audience is a great point. There is a natural progression to everything but at the same time as filmmakers grow obviously they are more willing to take risks. Now in my opinion if the argument about KS films is that it is jaw yacking and held together by incidents between conversations, well I don't really have a problem with that. KS is using the medium in a different way then having people run across the face of Mount Rushmore to get home to their bartenders. I don't think that makes for an incomplete or unfinished script, just a different approach to the art form.

Here's an example. Give me a canvas and someone else a canvas, ooh, Hudson likes to watercolor. OK, give me a canvas, and Hudson a canvas. Hudson will most likely do a surfing picture, something along the lines of a water scene that will induce the feeling of floating amongst the waves. For me, I am going to write a word really big across the canvas and color it in. I know we've already had the whole 'art is subjective' conversation today, but ultimately we are both painting something. KS is painting with words more than images and using the actors to deliver the words. Where they are, what they are doing, and who they are become less important than what they are saying. Maybe it just comes down to whether you enjoy what they are saying... I don't know.

[The Machinist]

Two great posts. The whole frog thing, I think he just over thought it and it doesn't work for me at all. I got all the biblical references, the scientific data, even a prophecy, but you know what? It pulls me completely out of the movie and gives me just a WTF moment.

It is a WTF moment. And if it pulls you out of the movie then its succeeded cause its certainly going to pull the characters out of the holes they've dug for themselves through the course of their lives.

[Jim Brennan]

Yankee,

I agree with that, but the masses expect certain hings from a paticular form. Some of the things they expect from a film are dramatic tension, plot and character development, etc. I think there are some gems in his films. If he was able to take those gems and craft a true (in the classic sense) screenplay around them...well then we'd have something.

I see KS movies as being not unlike the 3 stooges...funny stuff for a certain crowd. But best in small doses

And I have no qualms with watching a KS film as a collection of funny bits. I do that now and again. But that's SNL, not a film, IMHO.

[seejay1031]

It is a WTF moment. And if it pulls you out of the movie then its succeeded cause its certainly going to pull the characters out of the holes they've dug for themselves through the course of their lives.
Exactly. Machinist- that is the most concise and accurate statement I have read on that scene.

[J.R. Hudson]

It is a tie back into the opening sequence- which is a snappy series of short actual events that defy logic and probability. The frog's are the major event in the film which also defies logic and probability...

I don't agree that the opening prologue prepares us for this event.

'...coincidence and chance, and intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows.' (That is the narrators quotes).

Not Defying Logic.

I mean, Frogs.
Falling out the sky.
It could have been Cows, right ?

I too have read and re-read the Exodus accounts and all of the justifying on the web of this scene and I still say bull-shit ! Frogs. Presposterous is what comes to mind. Why don't we just drop cockroaches at the end of Die HArd to save them from the Terrorists ? I don'lt think we wan't 'improbable bull-shit' in our movies. We wan't to be swept away and suspended but not slapped in the face with it.

I don't know. I guess it took some kind of balls to make that the ending. I like him and agree he is one talented filmmaker; I do believe Magnolia was a complete misstep however.

The fact that the Frog's have NOTHING to do with our story is the problem.

[Jim Brennan]

I think that anything that pulls you out of the narrative and calls attention to itself by reminding you that you are watching a movie is a dangerous thing. Cleverness should not call attention to itself. That defeats the purpose.

[spencer]

I hate to bring back a post from a couple of pages back, but I have school, so I get out of the loop for a bit.

John, did you like the way True Romance was shot? I've been watching it recently, and I have to say that I really don't like Tony Scott that much when thinking of that movie. I think it would've been a step up if Tarantino directed it, mainly because I just like his visual style.

[seejay1031]

John-
There is NO WAY it could have been cows. Why? Because cows have never rained down on the earth- frog's have- Like it or not, it is an event that happens in these characters lives and it is every bit as likely as a mother accidently shooting her own son as he is falling past her window in a suicide attempt.

[Bigmagic]

Wow this thread has really sparked debate much like politics or religion(whoops). I look at movies as entertainment much like music. Charlie Parker may not have been a classical musician but he was a virtuoso. You can find it over and over again. I like QT because he has a warped vision of things and takes us someplace out of the ordinary. Now after you watch a number of his movies you may believe that you have him pegged but I don't think so. I look forward to whatever he releases. I feel much the same about RRs. I think he has yet to have a great scipt to work with. Kevin Smith's gutter humor can get old but I like his dialog(the part without cursing JMHO). I love Tarantino's dialog although I doubt anyone actually talks like that.
Disagreement is ok, debate is ok, airing you opinions is ok as well. There will always be someone who doesn't like what you like or what I like. All we can do is hope they see the light. (LMAO)

[Blaine]

I think that anything that pulls you out of the narrative and calls attention to itself by reminding you that you are watching a movie is a dangerous thing. Cleverness should not call attention to itself. That defeats the purpose.

Well said. I think that anything, no matter how cool it is, that calls attention to itself is not a good thing. From a technical aspect you may say, "Wow, that was a cool shot, how'd he do that?" but then you're not paying attention to the story, rather the way it was made. I think it's self indulgent for a director to do something just because he can and not because it is the right thing for the narrative.

[J.R. Hudson]

I think that anything that pulls you out of the narrative and calls attention to itself by reminding you that you are watching a movie is a dangerous thing.
Cleverness should not call attention to itself. That defeats the purpose.
I 100 % agree with this in narrative filmmaking.


Once I am removed from the world it's gone.


John, did you like the way True Romance was shot? I've been watching it recently, and I have to say that I really don't like Tony Scott that much when thinking of that movie. I think it would've been a step up if Tarantino directed it, mainly because I just like his visual style.

I was saying what you are saying; I would loved to have seen a QT version rather than Scott's Glossy Slick version; I still love the film though due in most part to QT's Screenplay and the performances



There is NO WAY it could have been cows. Why? Because cows have never rained down on the earth- frog's have- Like it or not, it is an event that happens in these characters lives and it is every bit as likely as a mother accidently shooting her own son as he is falling past her window in a suicide attempt.


Although I understand what you are saying (And I have heard it a million ways) it just doesnt vibe for me. It has nothing to do with the story
whatsoever therefore it is wasted on me completely.

One second I am told it is a biblical event or an Urban Legend or it is merely a natural phenomenon. I don't care what it's called, it's bad filmmaking.

Tons of strange things have happended on this planet; that doesnt make it a good plot point does it ?

And it could have been a cow; it could be anything a 'Los Angeles tornado' picked up and threw down on them. There have been account's of ice falling out of the sky does this make it a good story ?

How about we tell the story of a child abduction case and the Law and Order that follows right into the courtroom and we'll show all of the people that are involved in it from the victims to the criminal's to the cops and lawyers and then in the end we'll have Ice fall from the sky; no wait we'll have sardines instead; no wait how about ( Insert Biblical Event, Strange Phenomenon, Urban Myth or True Account Here )

Cows ?

http://www.roadtripamerica.com/roadside/Falling-Cow.jpg

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa082602b.htm

Apparently there have been accounts of all kinds of crazyass shite falling from the sky; I still say it's a lame thing to end a movie with !

[Jim Brennan]

I've had the subtleties and symbolism of Barton Fink explained to me a thousand times, and it all makes sense. But the movie still bores me.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I hate the whole frog thing and is ruins the movie for me. Just my opinion.

EDIT:
That was my shortest reply this whole thread.

[Josh_Boelter]

Man, this is why I hardly ever post. I respond the whole Elmore Leonard influencing Quentin Tarentino idea, and I come back to the site a few høurs later and there are ten pages of new discussions in the thread! To get back to Leonard and John Hudson's comments, I didn't mean to give all of QT's success to the influence of Leonard. There's a reason Leonard has written scores of novels but no longer writes screenplays and doesn't direct. Just as there's a reason QT directs movies and doesn't write novels.

Now, back to the current subject: I'm waiting for a film that inlcudes raining vampire wildebeest ninjas who have witty things to say about pop culture and fast food in Amsterdam.

Cheers,

Josh

[J.R. Hudson]

LMAO! Well put !

[The Machinist]

I've had the subtleties and symbolism of Barton Fink explained to me a thousand times, and it all makes sense. But the movie still bores me


I don't see how anyone could be bored by Barton Fink. The performances in that film were outstanding. Even smaller roles like Chet! were a riot. The fact that the film was written as a way to end their own writers block, i feel, makes it even more intriguing and ranks this one as my all time favorite Coen brothers film. They have shown us the life of the mind.

[Jim Brennan]

Yep, great performances all around. I get the writers block thing, I get the symbolism...I just don't like the movie very much.

It's that arguable difference called taste I guess. What I like may not always be good, and what is good, I may not always like.

My point was just that you can understand the motivation and symbolism behind something. That doesn't mean it works for you.

[Blaine]

I don't see how anyone could be bored by Barton Fink. The performances in that film were outstanding. Even smaller roles like Chet! were a riot. The fact that the film was written as a way to end their own writers block, i feel, makes it even more intriguing and ranks this one as my all time favorite Coen brothers film. They have shown us the life of the mind.


Hits and misses. The Coen Brothers have mostly hits, but I didn't care for The Hudsucker Proxy, O Brother, Lady Killers (I would have figured they'd be above lousy remakes) and Raising Arizona. I don't know how I couldn't like Raising Arizona, everyone around me raves about it but somehow, it just didn't connect.

The hits, Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Blood Simple.

Honorable mention (trying to like them more The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink)

I need to see The Man Who Wasn't There

[Jim Brennan]

I liked O Brother, mostly because of the music, and Clooney's performance. But Miller's Crossing and Fargo are a close tie for a favorite. I'd pick Miller's Crossing though because of how Gabriel Byrne mixes it up with Marcia Gay Harden

[J.R. Hudson]

The Coen Brother's are a a talent for sure

My favorite is Fargo.

I liked everything about Miller's Crossing except the lead (Byrne). I can't stand that motherfucker.

I also did not care for Barton Fink; John Goodman is a pig. In fact; I find it hard pressed to like anything that showcases Goodman.

Loved Oh Brother; Intolerable sucked; Ladykiller's sucked; Raising Arizona rules; Blood Simple kick's ass.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I'm a big fan of Hudsucker just because Robbins is brilliant.

[The Machinist]

Hudson you're killing me.

Goodman a pig?

I'll have to offer up an extra case of milwakee's best at his altar to atone for your sins.

[Filmjunkie677]

Really, Hudson??

Didn't you ever see "Sea Of Love"

[Blaine]

I also did not care for Barton Fink; John Goodman is a pig. In fact; I find it hard pressed to like anything that showcases Goodman.

Which would seem to indicate that you don't like The Big Lebowski either?

I didn't care for it much the first time I watched it but it really grew on me.

[The Machinist]

I didn't care for it much the first time I watched it but it really grew on me

Almost every person I've talked to about Lebowski felt the same way. There's something about that movie that begs repeated viewings. I love it and continue to quote it everyday ad nauseum.

[J.R. Hudson]

Well I also don't like Jeff Bridges so I never really dug the BIG LEBOWSKI either.

I did like Sea of Love

[Blaine]

Well I also don't like Jeff Bridges so I never really dug the BIG LEBOWSKI either.

I did like Sea of Love

I get you on the Jeff Bridges thing. Trying to think of what I like him in I can only come up with The Big Lebowski (and it's not really for him) and The Last Picture Show. If you want to see something good, written by Larry McMurtry you'll want to see The Last Picture Show - a classic. There are a couple of others I liked but it was in spite of Bridges and not because of him.

[Jim Brennan]

Jeff Bridges=Tron

'nuff said

[Filmjunkie677]

How did Tron not win the oscar for best picture???

Lol.

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm just not a fan of Jeff Bridges (and of the Bridges really). Maybe it's because their just annoying looking, I don't know.

I did like the films:

KING KONG
TRON
AGAINST ALL ODDS (fuck she was hot
STARMAN
TUCKER
WHITE SQUALL
SEABISCUIT

But as mentioned not because of Bridges

[Jim Brennan]

Chris Cooper made Seabiscuit for me. I'd watch him in anything...except a porno with my Mom

[J.R. Hudson]

lmao!!!!

[J.R. Hudson]

Kind of back on topic:

Speaking of filmmakers that are either cool or suck ballz...

John Carpenter

How can one man be resonsible for so much of what I think is cool in Cinema yet be such a hack afterall ?

Dark Star
Assualt on Precinct 13
Halloween
The Fog
Escape From New York
The Thing
Christine (I find his most technically savvy film)

and then it's pretty much down hill from there. JC is just one of the Director's that never seemed to mature as a filmmaker. I mean, Escape From L.A. was horribly shot, Ghost of Mars and Vampires was just so very amatuer looking.

[Jim Brennan]

I like the idea of Capenter more than most of his films. He is a true independent. But Halloween is literally a masterpiece. Escape from NY is a Classic. But then again, Kurt Russell is someone I actually WOULD watch in a porno with my mom
:beer:

[J.R. Hudson]

Bwhahahahahahah ! ( Hilarious )

Russel is indeed the man.

And Halloween is most def the epic classic

[The Machinist]

Kurt Russell is someone I actually WOULD watch in a porno with my mom

I'd watch that one too :beer:

[Jim Brennan]

Lemmee see if I can dig up a copy...

[Blaine]

I remember the 1st thing I ever liked with Russell in it...Used Cars. That movie STILL makes me laugh. :laugh: :laugh:

Captain Ron
Tombstone
Big Trouble in Little China
Escape From New York
Breakdown

some good movies.

[Jim Brennan]

Oooh Tombstone. Russel and Kilmer are (IMHO) the best on-screen western pairing ever.

[J.R. Hudson]

Tombstone rules.

----

Tequila Sunrise ( That monologue to Michelle in the restuarant! Great film! )
Backdraft
Unlawful Entry

Russel is one of the more underrated actors in Hollywood.

[Blaine]

Oooh Tombstone. Russel and Kilmer are (IMHO) the best on-screen western pairing ever.

I'd be close with Redford and Newman.

[Jim Brennan]

That's true, but after reading some books that talk about Redford I see him differently. Not that the guys managerial skills or ego should affect how I see his acting....but I can't help it. Newman....man I'd DO a porno with him....but not if my Mom were there.

[Filmjunkie677]

Who's seen "Dark Blue"??? Probably nobody.

An underrated gem.

That movie kicks ass. A modern performence from Russel that went unoticed. He's incredible in that.

[J.R. Hudson]

Dark Blue was super good; underrated, yes.

I always found Butch and Sundance a little too cute for me and have never been a total fan of Redford. Redford falls into the Warren Beatty category for me; the dudes can totally act but I'm not going to die if I never see them again.

If I had to f*** a man. I'd F*** Paul Newman.

[The Machinist]

So you'd take Newman to the top of Brokeback MT?

[Jim Brennan]

I'd let him take me...

Dark Blue was written by James Ellroy, no?

[Blaine]

It was his story, not screenplay.

http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt0279331/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9ZGFyay BibHVlfGZ0PTF8bXg9MjB8bG09NTAwfGNvPTF8aHRtbD0xfG5t PTE_;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1

[Filmjunkie677]

David Ayer, who did Training Day, wrote the script.

And it totally feels like an Ellroy story.


I clicked on David Ayer's IMDB page and it says The wild bunch????!!!

Since when are they remaking that!!!!???? News to me.

[Jim Brennan]

I like Ellroy stories, but not the way he writes. It's too dense and chaotic for me. But i love what Hansen and Helgeland did with LA confidential. Reading the book is like walking knee high through mollasses: sometimes it's sweet, but it's hard friggin work.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I've been out of the loop today on the board so I had to read three pages to catch back up. I wanna chime back to something that Hudson mentioned... Carpenter.

I agree that he hasn't grown as a filmmaker and if we factor in inflation, he's still working with the same budget that he has always used. Personally my favorite film of his is In The Mouth of Madness, but I also think that Escape from NY is the difinitive post apocolyptic film of its time. I know that everyone goes right towards Blade Runner, but Carpenter worked with a lot less and created this incredible world for me that I could see existing. Blade Runner always seemed a little too far beyond what I could see happening. It reminds me of the the little things that I liked about Demolition Day, Taco Bell winning the franchise wars and the big one hitting the west coast. Just those little gems that are written in that you could see happening. (before anyone attacks me Blade Runner is a great film, just an opinion here).

The thing with Carpenter though is he continues to make the same films stylistically; not that that is a bad thing, just the way things are. Carpenter is where Kevin Smith is going to be in 20 years. I'm sure he'll stop withthe dick and fart jokes, but it will still be the same director.

And, to really get back onto topic, last night I explored the bonus features on the Clerks X disc. Kevin Smith does this introduction to the restored version and I almost got pissed watching it. Here is this fat guy (not that I'm skinny or even close this winter) who is just rambling about nothing and his claim to fame is this movie. He just seemed like the most meglomaniac personality I have ever seen. Something didn't sit right with me and I lost a lot of respect for him. I still am a fan of his films, but not him. The other thing is he finishes this introduction and then says: Well I'm gonna go take a $hit.

WTF? Dude, c'mon... You moron!

[Jim Brennan]

But it's that attitude that wins him the majority of his fans.

I liked the Evening With...Dvd, but eventually the humor got old. How long can you re-enact Jason Mewes giving a blow job to a flag pole? But the crowds ate it up. That love him for stuff like that.

Three Stooges
Kevin Smith
Small Doses

[sugahsean469]

Kevin Smith does this introduction to the restored version and I almost got pissed watching it. Here is this fat guy (not that I'm skinny or even close this winter) who is just rambling about nothing and his claim to fame is this movie. He just seemed like the most meglomaniac personality I have ever seen. Something didn't sit right with me and I lost a lot of respect for him. I still am a fan of his films, but not him. The other thing is he finishes this introduction and then says: Well I'm gonna go take a $hit.

WTF? Dude, c'mon... You moron!

How true. I did like his stuff, when they came out, as I was working at the movie theatre and was in highschool then, but fast foward to now, and his stuff blows, not only for what every person on this thread has written (technical, visual, uninspired, no progression), but just the fact as a man he is a WUSSY, and he and his movies promote and inspire WUSSY-DOM to men of all ages, for guys to have their balls contained in their girlfriend's purses. Does every movie he make have to revolve around a ultra-whipped guy(s) doing everything in his power to win back a girl who really isn't all that worth it to begin with?!

Every actor who has played James Bond should be able to punch him, and then should give him pointers on how to deal with women, and while they're there, tell him it's okay to shoot with different angles and close ups.

When Leia says "I love you," Han says "I know." Where was Mr. Smith during that part of his zillionth Star Wars viewings?

--oh, and Dark Blue ROCKS!!

[spencer]

From what I read, everyone liked Kevin Smith in high school and hate him later on. I guess I have a look at what life will be like when i'm older: Smith free.

Yeah, I watched the Evening with Kevin Smith dvd once, and liked it, but he really does get old. Then there was that whole stretch where he was attached to what seemed like five million films (Green Hornet and a new Fletch were of canon concern) and just kept fucking one up after another. He may still be doing Fletch, I don't know, but his personality keeps becoming more and more unappealing, and I think it's really because of Hollywood. Lame.

Plus, I'm gonna sound really stupid/bitchy when I say this, but I don't think his wife has a positive effect on him. Like Sugah mentioned, he seems very whipped. It produced Chasing Amy, but this time I don't see an outcome as cool.

[ZFarms Productions]

i'm a die hard kevin smith fan. yeah jay and silent bob strike back wasnt the greatest and neither was jersey girl. what everyone is saying about how he just writes down what he hears and such and makes it into a movie may be true but it's what i like about his movies. they're real to me. the dialogue to me is witty and i like it. clerks is a classic movie to me. i can watch it everyday if i want to and never get tired of it. i absolutely love clerks. mallrats doesnt get the attention it deserves. i really liked it. chasing amy is great as well. i liked dogma a lot. oh well that's my 2 cents on this topic.

[Jim Brennan]

It's funny....for a minute I actually imagined Stephen Spielberg saying that...

[Jeremy Ordan]

It's funny....for a minute I actually imagined Stephen Spielberg saying that...


That made my night. Brilliant. That just did it for me.

[ZFarms Productions]

It's funny....for a minute I actually imagined Stephen Spielberg saying that...


hahaha! thats great!

[Weston]

it will be interesting to see what QT does with a war movie..if he ever makes Inglorious Bastards. He will have to to do action without stylizing the hell out of it like in kill bill. Though there was nothing wrong with that. But it will be interesting to see pure action. Not to mention Stalone Willis and Ahhhnold in the same movie.

[Draccan]

it will be interesting to see what QT does with a war movie..if he ever makes Inglorious Bastards. He will have to to do action without stylizing the hell out of it like in kill bill. Though there was nothing wrong with that. But it will be interesting to see pure action. Not to mention Stalone Willis and Ahhhnold in the same movie.

Gotta agree with that ... All the 80s action heroes in one flick by Tarantino could keep me plastered for a couple of hours to the silver screen :thumbsup:

[Filmjunkie677]

Not to mention Stalone Willis and Ahhhnold in the same movie.

too bad he's already said that is BS and its not gonna happen.