Fight Club

Still awesome...

Mason01 wrote:Jackie Brown (1997)
8/10



Really enjoyable, and full of awesome moments. I think this is rather overlooked in general, the most out of all Tarantino films, but it was really good. Samuel L. Jackson was superb.

I'd say True Romance is the overlooked Tarantino film.

Jeebus wrote:

Mason01 wrote:Jackie Brown (1997)
8/10



Really enjoyable, and full of awesome moments. I think this is rather overlooked in general, the most out of all Tarantino films, but it was really good. Samuel L. Jackson was superb.

I'd say True Romance is the overlooked Tarantino film.

But he didn't direct that, so it doesn't -exactly- count.

-Vader

The Wackness - Didn't really enjoyed it... I mean, I really liked Ben Kingsley performance and the sounstrack was great but... the story was kind of boring. Josh Peck was annoying, it's a shame the whole movie wasn't like the last 10 minutes : more energy, more dynamism. I guess I should have rewatched Trainspotting

Vader182 wrote:

Jeebus wrote: I'd say True Romance is the overlooked Tarantino film.

But he didn't direct that, so it doesn't -exactly- count.

-Vader

Yes it does. Tarantino himself (as you know) wrote it and it was his first feature-length script/film. Actually writing the screenplay is of equal importance (or more so) than being the guy behind the camera and it's just as relevant to his filmography as Jackie Brown etc. regardless of who directed it. It's not as if his involvement in the film was non-existent just because he didn't direct it; quite the opposite actually.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot.

-Jeebus

Jeebus wrote:

Vader182 wrote:
But he didn't direct that, so it doesn't -exactly- count.

-Vader

Yes it does. Tarantino himself (as you know) wrote it and it was his first feature-length script/film. Actually writing the screenplay is of equal importance (or more so) than being the guy behind the camera and it's just as relevant to his filmography as Jackie Brown etc. regardless of who directed it. It's not as if his involvement in the film was non-existent just because he didn't direct it; quite the opposite actually.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot.

-Jeebus

What you saw on screen was more Tony Scott's vision than Tarantino's.

allstarr55js wrote:

Jeebus wrote: Yes it does. Tarantino himself (as you know) wrote it and it was his first feature-length script/film. Actually writing the screenplay is of equal importance (or more so) than being the guy behind the camera and it's just as relevant to his filmography as Jackie Brown etc. regardless of who directed it. It's not as if his involvement in the film was non-existent just because he didn't direct it; quite the opposite actually.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot.

-Jeebus

What you saw on screen was more Tony Scott's vision than Tarantino's.

....the script is obviously extremely important, but the director is far, far more relevant to the film than anything else.

-Vader

Vader182 wrote:

allstarr55js wrote:
What you saw on screen was more Tony Scott's vision than Tarantino's.

....the script is obviously extremely important, but the director is far, far more relevant to the film than anything else.

-Vader

No elaboration? Cool.

-Jeebus

Have we determined why Vader signs off yet?

-Mason

Jeebus wrote:

Vader182 wrote:

....the script is obviously extremely important, but the director is far, far more relevant to the film than anything else.

-Vader

No elaboration? Cool.

-Jeebus

Well I think what Vader means is that the director can interpret a script in whatever way they feel and that greatly changes the outcome of the final product. It would be interesting to give two very different directors the same script and see how different the resulting films would be.