Grindhouse.....split
- Thread starter scar this armada
- Start date
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
How long were they married ?
Ahhh, who knows ? She may have just been a betch.
Ahhh, who knows ? She may have just been a betch.
DeSica
Well-known member
One of those pics is definitely a touched up one of a chick who has had some work done here and there.
The other is of a chick who hasn't had Marilyn Manson inside her.
That evens the field a bit in my book.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Lmao !!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to post something about MM being inside of RM, but hell I can't even make time traveling plans without them being deleted. However, in reality, with the duration of time that has passed, RM would not have any cell that would have come in contact with MM, so -- PLAY BALL!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Kinf of back on topic :undecided :cheesy:
Tarantino
A thought
I think what excites me is the fact he is only 44 years old.
We talk about the masters of Scorsese and Spielberg; both enjoyed success early; Scorsese was 34 when he made MEAN STREETS, 38 with RAGING BULL, 48 with GOODFELLAS and 64 with THE DEPARTED (His Oscar)
Steve was a prodigy with JAWS at 26 but was 46 when he nailed it with SCHINDLER'S LIST; this despite ET and RAIDERS which are wonderful wonderful films; I am focusing on masterpieces, not Popcorn.
Coppola was 40 when he did Apocalypse Now (and hasn't done much since).
James Cameron was 44 when he won the Oscar for TITANIC (Say what you will, many people will argue it is a great film)
Even the great Hitch didn't perfect the art and become the master of suspense until he was in his 50's. He was 61 when Psycho was made.
My point is; TARANTINO doing DOGS at 29, PULP FICTION at 31, JACKIE BROWN (Arguably his best work to date) at 34, the KILL BILLS at 40 and DEATHPROOF at 43 ................
This guy has something in the wings. Something tells me he is still finding himself as an auteur. Will it be INGLORIUS BASTARDS ? I don't know ....
But the critical acclaim the man gets and the discussion that are feverish regarding him are testament to his skills and impact on cinema.
.02 on a Sunday Night
Tarantino
A thought
I think what excites me is the fact he is only 44 years old.
We talk about the masters of Scorsese and Spielberg; both enjoyed success early; Scorsese was 34 when he made MEAN STREETS, 38 with RAGING BULL, 48 with GOODFELLAS and 64 with THE DEPARTED (His Oscar)
Steve was a prodigy with JAWS at 26 but was 46 when he nailed it with SCHINDLER'S LIST; this despite ET and RAIDERS which are wonderful wonderful films; I am focusing on masterpieces, not Popcorn.
Coppola was 40 when he did Apocalypse Now (and hasn't done much since).
James Cameron was 44 when he won the Oscar for TITANIC (Say what you will, many people will argue it is a great film)
Even the great Hitch didn't perfect the art and become the master of suspense until he was in his 50's. He was 61 when Psycho was made.
My point is; TARANTINO doing DOGS at 29, PULP FICTION at 31, JACKIE BROWN (Arguably his best work to date) at 34, the KILL BILLS at 40 and DEATHPROOF at 43 ................
This guy has something in the wings. Something tells me he is still finding himself as an auteur. Will it be INGLORIUS BASTARDS ? I don't know ....
But the critical acclaim the man gets and the discussion that are feverish regarding him are testament to his skills and impact on cinema.
.02 on a Sunday Night
Batutta
Major Contributor
ET and RAIDERS are masterpieces, as is Schindler's List. Let's not be snobs.
I totally think we have not seen his best yet and that is a double edged sword when he releases less than par stuff like Kill Bill.
I know a lot of his 'haters' believe that his best has come and gone.
Many of the great director's have had their best film around the age of 40, but of course it is not true for all directors. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai was released when he was 44.
While I think there was a vast improvement in the dialogue within Death Proof, it is still not as good as his early work with Roger Avary. Similarly, neither is Roger's without Tarantino.
I know a lot of his 'haters' believe that his best has come and gone.
Many of the great director's have had their best film around the age of 40, but of course it is not true for all directors. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai was released when he was 44.
While I think there was a vast improvement in the dialogue within Death Proof, it is still not as good as his early work with Roger Avary. Similarly, neither is Roger's without Tarantino.
DeSica
Well-known member
Close Encounters...wasn't exactly garbage either, but that is besides the point.
We are interupting one man expressing his blind love for another....
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Then you don't me.
Spielberg is a bonafied master; JAWS, RAIDERS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, ET are awesome in my book.
But let us forget 1941, the other INDY films and Hook, among a few others.
Me ? A Snob regarding Steve ?
That's funny.
Close ENCOUNTERS is epic in my book; but not Schindler's, not SPR, Not Munich ......
Blind Love; you're missing the point entirely.
My point exactly.
DeSica
Well-known member
Given the historical importance of the piece and the heroic actions of it's subject, it really isn't a level playing field. Though I am no great lover of Mr. Spielberg (or Senor Spielbergo, his non-union Mexican equivalent), Shchindler's List was undeniably powerful and moving for me, and a superior film to something like Saving Private Ryan.
Hard to imagine he wanted to cast Alan Thicke as Oskar Schindler. Harder still to imagine that Thicke passed.
Regardless...catastrophe avoided.
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
I like Tarantino, so I really hope Inglorious Bastards will be the next step to maturity for him, and not just an homage to John Wayne war films or what have you. I've been saying for years that Jackie brawn is is best, and most mature film, then he reverts back to adolescence and makes the Kill Bills and Death Proof (mind you, I liked it, I just wish he would do something a little more worthwhile, and not another homage movie).
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Getting in late but:
Tarantino's best film IS Jackie Brown. The Kill Bills were, unfortunately, a step backward and while Death Proof isn't as good as his first three, it's nice to see him back writing good dialogue and interesting characters. Now, it's time for him to step out of his comfort zone and make something spectacular.
Concerning Spielberg, I agree that Schindler's List is an incredible film. If he is ever able to top it, it'll blow the doors of the movie going world.
Tarantino's best film IS Jackie Brown. The Kill Bills were, unfortunately, a step backward and while Death Proof isn't as good as his first three, it's nice to see him back writing good dialogue and interesting characters. Now, it's time for him to step out of his comfort zone and make something spectacular.
Concerning Spielberg, I agree that Schindler's List is an incredible film. If he is ever able to top it, it'll blow the doors of the movie going world.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Agreed; Schindler's List is simply one of the most powerful films ever made; one of the greatest (if not the). Saving Private Ryan, for me, is undeniably the only film to capture combat; it redefined how to caprture combat on film. That reason alone far outweighs the sublot they gave us.
If SPR could have given us the same 'Squad Level' look that Stone's Platoon did, it would have been the mother of all War Films I think.
-
Alan Thicke was in contention for Schindler's ? I had no idea. But one thing to consider, Hanks used to be a Bosom Buddy. Who would have thought he was the actor he is.
Like imagining Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones or decrying Daniel Craig's announcement as Bond; ine never knows.
It's a good point . . . were there any major roles in Spielberg's movies which you could say were miscast? If Spielberg wanted Thicke, he must have had a reason.
DeSica
Well-known member
You know, while he is a very good director, Spielberg does get lucky.
When the mechanical shark in Jaws kept breaking down (I think his name was Bruce), Spielberg was forced to use much less footage of the shark in the film, and it ended up working in his favor, as he admitted it added much more suspense. It could have ended up being more like the low-budget b movie it was supposed to be had things been a bit different.
For Jurassic Park, he shot a great deal of dinosaur test footage using Go Motion, and was reconciled to using it if he had to, but then the CGI stuff was done as a test, and it blew the other stuff away. The rest is history.
I think he got lucky with Thicke passing up the project. Neeson did a great job, but he did have the pedigree. A guy like Hanks did do sit-com fare early on, but he paid his dues, time and time again, and took advantage of opportunities others passed up.
Splash was apparently written for Travolta. Big was supposed to have various big name stars attached to it (Williams, Ford, Deniro...can you imagine DeNiro in that role??), but Hanks eventually got it. Even when he picks bad roles, for every Turner And Hooch or The Bonfire Of The Vanities, he manages to pull off something like A League Of Their Own or Philadelphia. The guy works alot, and is consistently good, even in bad fare.
I don't think you can say the same about Thicke. Spielberg was as lucky to have Neeson as Neeson was to land such a monumental role.
Side note- In typing this post, I noticed how many of Spielberg's best films are based on novels. Interesting.
When the mechanical shark in Jaws kept breaking down (I think his name was Bruce), Spielberg was forced to use much less footage of the shark in the film, and it ended up working in his favor, as he admitted it added much more suspense. It could have ended up being more like the low-budget b movie it was supposed to be had things been a bit different.
For Jurassic Park, he shot a great deal of dinosaur test footage using Go Motion, and was reconciled to using it if he had to, but then the CGI stuff was done as a test, and it blew the other stuff away. The rest is history.
I think he got lucky with Thicke passing up the project. Neeson did a great job, but he did have the pedigree. A guy like Hanks did do sit-com fare early on, but he paid his dues, time and time again, and took advantage of opportunities others passed up.
Splash was apparently written for Travolta. Big was supposed to have various big name stars attached to it (Williams, Ford, Deniro...can you imagine DeNiro in that role??), but Hanks eventually got it. Even when he picks bad roles, for every Turner And Hooch or The Bonfire Of The Vanities, he manages to pull off something like A League Of Their Own or Philadelphia. The guy works alot, and is consistently good, even in bad fare.
I don't think you can say the same about Thicke. Spielberg was as lucky to have Neeson as Neeson was to land such a monumental role.
Side note- In typing this post, I noticed how many of Spielberg's best films are based on novels. Interesting.