Grindhouse

[Sharktopus]

You know what pisses me off? That Tarantino and Rodriguez think that in order to make great films they have to splash blood and gore across the screen. You have to be very damn extreme with violence in your movie to get an NC-17 rating. I mean look at Kill Bill Volume 1. There were about 14 instances of limbs being chopped off, one instance of genitalia being cut off, and many instances of people being chopped in half, and of course heads being eviscerated or chopped off. That's about as extreme as you can get. Taking it any further is just ten steps backwards as far as I'm concerned. I just saw 300 tonight and it was certainly violent and bloody but it certainly didn't overdo it as is the custom with Tarantino. 

although it puts me in the unpopular side of this argument i got to second this. 

The best filmmakers never needed copious amounts
of blood and gore to make good movies. No, they implied gore and violence with very subtle, dignified touches without showing anything.

yeah i miss the genius of hitchcock.  And i REALLY miss subtlety. 

I agree that subtlety is sadly missing in Hollywood, especially in horror movies. That said, there is a time and place for blood and gore, and I hope Grindhouse is as exploitative as possible.

[Leopold_Stotch]

I agree that subtlety is sadly missing in Hollywood, especially in horror movies. That said, there is a time and place for blood and gore, and I hope Grindhouse is as exploitative as possible.

I am glad someone sees where I am coming from, but I would be so much more happier if Mister Tarantino would grow up and substitute something else for people's eyes being ripped out and squished between toes. Anything else but seeing a person cut into bite sizes by high tension wires or life-size cheese graters. If someone gave me the probable $50 million budget Tarantino and Rodriguez had for this movie, I could turn out one hell of an entertaining albeit mindless action adventure with a minimum of sex and violence that would at most get a PG-13 rating. If I could do it, so should Tarantino.

[MrTorso]

I am glad someone sees where I am coming from, but I would be so much more happier if Mister Tarantino would grow up and substitute something else for people's eyes being ripped out and squished between toes. Anything else but seeing a person cut into bite sizes by high tension wires or life-size cheese graters. If someone gave me the probable $50 million budget Tarantino and Rodriguez had for this movie, I could turn out one hell of an entertaining albeit mindless action adventure with a minimum of sex and violence that would at most get a PG-13 rating. If I could do it, so should Tarantino.

So Tarantino as an artist shouldn't make a film he wants to make?? He should make movies like you would? I really don't get this mentality. If you don't like Tarantino movies then you don't go see Tarantino movies.

[ScottotD]

Besides the fact Robert's Spy Kids series were a "hell of an entertaining albeit mindless action adventure with a minimum of sex and violence", just because you don't like violence doesn't make it bad or lazy film making or even an unacceptable form of entertainment. 

yeah i miss the genius of hitchcock.  And i REALLY miss subtlety. 

Psycho was gory for it's day, people walked out in disgust.  He COULDN'T show violence.

[Sharktopus]

Besides the fact Robert's Spy Kids series were a "hell of an entertaining albeit mindless action adventure with a minimum of sex and violence", just because you don't like violence doesn't make it bad or lazy film making or even an unacceptable form of entertainment. 

yeah i miss the genius of hitchcock.  And i REALLY miss subtlety. 

Psycho was gory for it's day, people walked out in disgust.  He COULDN'T show violence.

Point. In fact, Hitchcock pushed the envelope whenever he could. Thus the nudity in Frenzy. Hitch would've shown Marion in all her glory in Psycho if he could've, and buckets more blood, I'm sure. Anything to provoke a response from the audience.

[Pak-Man]

Terrantino is good at what he does. Every flick of his that I've seen is one that would normally be WAY to violent for my taste, but he injects an air of levity into the situation that makes you enjoy it instead of being extremely disturbed by it. I like his movies. I don't want everyone trying to do what he does, but he can keep on doing it as far as I'm concerned. There's room in Hollywood for one Terrantino. ONLY one, but there IS room for one. :^)

[Leopold_Stotch]

So Tarantino as an artist shouldn't make a film he wants to make?? He should make movies like you would? I really don't get this mentality.

When I think art, the last thing I think of is blood, guts and gore splashed into my face. He should make movies the WAY they should be made, in the days before it was fine to show a person being eviscerated or gutted on the silver screen. If you call that kind of thing artistry you need to see a psychiatrist. It is so easy to show blood and gore and it's a very cheap way to get thrills out of the audience. Once again, that does not define art. Art takes a long, hard analytical look at something. Art is subtle. Art is not in your face. Tarantino is not an artist, but he sure would like you to believe it.

[mrbasehart]

When I think art, the last thing I think of is blood, guts and gore splashed into my face. He should make movies the WAY they should be made, in the days before it was fine to show a person being eviscerated or gutted on the silver screen. If you call that kind of thing artistry you need to see a psychiatrist. It is so easy to show blood and gore and it's a very cheap way to get thrills out of the audience. Once again, that does not define art. Art takes a long, hard analytical look at something. Art is subtle. Art is not in your face. Tarantino is not an artist, but he sure would like you to believe it.

And of course, Grindhouse is his attempt at high art.   

[gbeenie]

Criminy, Leopold, have you even SEEN a Peckinpah western? Seriously.

I almost want to start getting pissed off at your posts on this subject, but they are so Luddite and dripping with idiot nostalgia that I'm beginning to think this whole thing is some kind of put-on. The problem is not you disliking Tarantino; I know lots of people who don't like Quentin Tarantino's movies (and for many of them, it IS the violence that turns them off), but I've never heard a single person say that it was because they're not "made the right way." (What the fuck does that even mean?)

Tarantino once made an excellent point about violence in films; what he said was that saying you don't like violence in movies is exactly like saying you don't like dance numbers in movies. It's a matter of personal preference; nothing more.

Frankly, Leopold, you remind me of my sixty-something uncle kvetching (please take time to admire my ironic use of a Yiddish term when talking about the WASPiest man I ever met  ) about how there were no great comedians like Red Skelton around anymore. And why aren't there?

Simple.

IT'S NOT 19-FUCKING-55!

(Note: MST3K fans might appreciate the fact that my uncle is the only human being I have ever heard utter the phrase "hamburger sandwiches")

[Pak-Man]

I'm gonna present my unique viewpoint here.

I generally dislike violence and I've never went to a theatre to witness bloodspray, decapitation, skulls crushed in, etc. HOWEVER, I have still managed to enjoy many violent movies (Many of them by Terrantino. :^)). I've found that Terrantino's good at creating an atmosphere where you see horrific violence, but it's somehow not so horrifying. It's factual, and objective. It's everywhere, but it's not shoved in your face,. unless it's so over-the-top it's cartoony (See: Kill Bill.) It's never unnecessary (Again, unless he's going way over the top) it's always a vital part of the story, and Terrantino has a way of letting the forth wall shelter you from all the bloodspray, and I admire him intensely for his talent. Compare his stuff to, say, Saw (Which I've never seen, but I'm gonna go off of hype and second-hand accounts.) and you'll find that violence is treated with much more of a delicate touch. Saw, as I understand it, is very much in the business of tormenting its audience with violence. Terrantino uses it as a tool.

Now, to take this all to the point, I don't want the creator of Saw to stop making Saw movies. I'm very much aware that Saw has its audience, and they love the Saw experience. I don't think Saw was made wrong. If so many people enjoyed it, obviously it was made right. Just not right for me. And I'm OK with that. :^)

[RandyMistie]

Well, these are all valid points.  And I hate the current trend of "torture porn" which is very distasteful to me in the extreme.  It's one thing to chase a victim throught the woods with a chainsaw or a machette, at least the victim has a chance to get away and it has an element of real drama.  When you tie a victim up and torture them for many agonizing minutes, or even imply it... to me that's just twisted.

But, the difference with Tarrantino and other "more quality" schlock film makers is that they can actually write interesting dialogue.  I love dialogue.  That's all I ever judge a film by, character interplay and the language.  I can forgive almost anything in a film if the writing is engaging, smart, and interesting.  That's just me.

[MrTorso]

When I think art, the last thing I think of is blood, guts and gore splashed into my face.

And that is fine because that is what YOU think.

He should make movies the WAY they should be made, in the days before it was fine to show a person being eviscerated or gutted on the silver screen.

Did you go to film school??  You have that air about you. You know it is ok to disagree with your professors every now and again.

If you call that kind of thing artistry you need to see a psychiatrist.

So now I have mental problems? Thanks Dr. Phil!

It is so easy to show blood and gore and it's a very cheap way to get thrills out of the audience.

What is wrong with that? Why is it so wrong to enjoy a cheap thrill? You also make it sound like any one can do it. I have seen plenty of horror flicks that I thought were terrible regardless of the amount of blood and gore.

Once again, that does not define art. Art takes a long, hard analytical look at something. Art is subtle. Art is not in your face.

You can't be serious.  Why can't art be in your face?  Not everything has to have a deeper meaning, sometimes you just have to take things at face value and not over analyze things to death.

[torgosPizza]

I gotta agree with the masses, Leopold. Not all art is subtle. Remember that guy who flung poo on the painting of the Virgin Mary? And it caused all types of hysteria? That was not subtle in the least, but could still be argued as "art." Offensive to many on a deep level, sure... but it was his idea of art.

Speaking as an art major I think I can say that the purpose of art is to elicit a reaction from the viewer. It doesn't matter WHAT the reaction is - even NO reaction can be considered a reaction. That's why the ideas can be abstract, subtle, or like a ton of bricks, and that's why it's so subjective. People bring their own experiences and ideologies to whatever piece of art they look at, whether it's film, a painting, a sculpture, whatever.

To say that "if it's not subtle, it's not art" is completely missing the point about what art is. To you, only the subtle pieces will suffice, and that's fine. That's your right as the observer. But to pigeonhole everyone into that niche is, again, going WAY past the point and into the stratosphere.

[RandyMistie]

I gotta agree with the masses, Leopold. Not all art is subtle. Remember that guy who flung poo on the painting of the Virgin Mary? And it caused all types of hysteria? That was not subtle in the least, but could still be argued as "art." Offensive to many on a deep level, sure... but it was his idea of art.

Speaking as an art major I think I can say that the purpose of art is to elicit a reaction from the viewer. It doesn't matter WHAT the reaction is - even NO reaction can be considered a reaction. That's why the ideas can be abstract, subtle, or like a ton of bricks, and that's why it's so subjective. People bring their own experiences and ideologies to whatever piece of art they look at, whether it's film, a painting, a sculpture, whatever.

To say that "if it's not subtle, it's not art" is completely missing the point about what art is. To you, only the subtle pieces will suffice, and that's fine. That's your right as the observer. But to pigeonhole everyone into that niche is, again, going WAY past the point and into the stratosphere.

Quoted for truth...

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

even NO reaction can be considered a reaction

Torgo i agreed with your entire post, except that sentance.  As a semantical fact, no i cant.  A lack of a reation is precisely that, it is not a sort of sub reaction, it is no reaction.  I know what you were getting at, but i dont think it was worded right.  Again i do agree with your point. 

When I think art, the last thing I think of is blood, guts and gore splashed into my face. He should make movies the WAY they should be made, in the days before it was fine to show a person being eviscerated or gutted on the silver screen. If you call that kind of thing artistry you need to see a psychiatrist. It is so easy to show blood and gore and it's a very cheap way to get thrills out of the audience. Once again, that does not define art. Art takes a long, hard analytical look at something. Art is subtle. Art is not in your face. Tarantino is not an artist, but he sure would like you to believe it.

Look man, i hate everything tarantino has ever said or thought about movies.  I disagree with most of his points of view.  However i disagree with most of what you just said as well.  Its not so much what you say but how your saying it really.  Further even i think its silly to try and say he is a BAD film maker.  On a purely practicle (spelling?)  point of view the fact people like him makes him a decent film maker.  On a more abstract point of view, ive seen some of the stuff he has made.  Despite not liking his message or his presentation, some of the shots he makes in his movies are really clever, and despite my dislike i start liking the scene, clearly not something everyone can do.