uch, time for me to cause trouble about bad movies

[Chadzilla]

[playful tease] You just don't 'get it', nyah-nyah. [/playful tease]

 :-)

[Evan3]

Im sorry that the cast of TCM seems to have been totally and awfully disturbed. I saw the documentary to make heads and tails of the thing and it kind of disgusted me more. Yes, disgusting can be good and relevant (American History X, Aliens) but you can tell they were acting. I dont care if that girl was so slow, the fact is , it looked so goofy when he was swinging that chainsaw and cutting off random trees. I will never forget in the documentary when the guy said they ACTUALLY beat the girl with the hammer. THat is crazy, there is a line between real life and fiction and they crossed it. It was not really scary (maybe for its time, however, some scares like the Exorcist, Halloween) endure no matter how many times you see it.  Plus, no one has told me why the end of TCM makes sense, talk about a movie that just ends.

Yes, I did  see Deliverance and I liked it. I dont see how you can compare it to Pulp Fiction?? What was that movie even about. You all seem to hate American Psycho, which to me, combines the senseless and disturbing violence of TCM with the pointlessness of PF.


What characters in PF had any layers or changes. Bruce WIllis maybe, but I think he saved the guy because he knew it would benefit him in the long run. Travolta learned nothing at all from any of his experiences, he just got worse. Sam L. Jackson, didnt have any layers, he just had an epiphany. I am sorry, but sticking a watch in your ass does not steal the show. Yes the non linear story telling is unique and fun, but it has been done much better in movies such as Go (I highly reccomend this movie), The Simpsons, and Memento.

Also, Pulp Fiction had no point except an unsettling one, while Go and Seinfeld had no points, they were much much better.

Sorry for rambling, but last thing. Jaws is great, those characters have layers and endearing traits. The suspense is amazing and 'Jaws' becomes much more than just a shark. I highly commend you on your defense of one of Spielburg's greatest efforts TC.

[BryceDavid]

I don't understand why the ending in TCM doesn't make any sense. The woman escapes. That's it.

The ending of TCM is part of why the movie is considered a classic. It's just insanity. The girl finally escapes (and she seems crazed too by now) and Leatherface is frustrated and "dances" around, waving his chainsaw in the air. The ending happens as is. You have to look at it like if it was "live." The film's raw feel is encapsulated perfectly by the quick ending. It's like an electrical wire that's still alive by the time the film ends. There's no winding down.

Anyway, because a movie doesn't have a concrete resolution mean it's no good. Look at THE BIRDS for a great example.

As for the film's so called "authenticity," well, the film was extremely low budget. I read the CINFANTASTIQUE article on TCM and they had to do with what they had. I don't think they could even afford of a prop hammer.

[Chadzilla]

Evan3 wrote:
>
>
> I highly commend you on your defense of one of Spielburg's
> greatest efforts TC.
>
>

Hey!  That was me!  :-(

Any who, the final half hour of TCM was shot in one twenty-four hour marathon...in the middle of a Texas SUMMER...with rotting crude all over the place and no ventiliation...ick.  The most scathing comment about that hell was made by the actor who played the Hitchhker, "I was in Vietnam.  Crawling through the mud, in the dark, hiding from people that wanted to kill me.  THAT was a more pleasent experience than the final day of shooting The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."

Take that Tobe!

[Brock]

What's your obsession with characters who have "layers and changes"?  The truth is not everyone in real life is like that.  Not that the characters in "Pulp Fiction" are particularly realistic, but not everyone goes through big life changes on a daily basis like most movie characters.  I think that was kind of the point.

And, btw, without Pulp Fiction "Go," and that episode of the Simpsons would've never happened.  To a lesser extent, "Memento" as well.  It's what's called an homage, or according to some, a rip off.  The movie Go and that "Simpsons" episode you refer to were very much inspired by "Pulp Fiction".  Not that I dind't enjoy them both, but you have to recognize and respect what started it all and opened the door for such bold, non-linear storytelling.  Not that "Pulp Fiction" was necessarily the first to do so, either, but it hit big time and made it mainstream.

[Evan3]

Pete B6K wrote:
> Pulp Fiction:
>
> Great, imaginitive, uncliched, original dialogue.  
> Deep, layered characters.
> A (somewhat) original non-linear structure
> Great direction
> Great editing
> Great soundtrack
> Great acting
> Interesting plots
> Some good humour

There Brock, that is why I felt I had to say there were no deep layered characters. Plus, I do get that Pulp Fiction was inventive, I just said that it has been done better elsewhere. For instance, Scream was not the first slasher, but it was done better than anything else for a while and better than some of its predecessors. Also, I just hated all of the characters where in other movies like Go, I felt while many of them were bad, at least they had something to make me feel for them. Like when travolta died, I wasnt happy or mad, just indifferent, in fact, I despised Bruce WIllis more for it. None of the characters were good, nor pleasing

Sorry about the mix up Chadzilla, u r really my hero! I just didsnt want to lose my post by checking who did it, so I hope u arent mad.

Also, Bryce, thanks for explaining the ending better, I guess I can at least accept that more, however the story and the fact that making a movie that was worse than Nam still blows my mind. That doesnt make the movie any better either.

[Chadzilla]

Well, I'll go with the deep and layered side of the argument for now.  Showing the movie in a non-linear fashion also allowed for a chance to see these shallow characters from various angles that showed a complexity to them (at least to me it did, and there is always the chance that I was hallucinating) and their actions revealed more about the nature of their character than their behavior did, which is great storytelling.  And I felt something when Travolta died.  My jaw hit the floor in shock, it was just so off hand and done with.  I was dizzy after it happened.  I also feel that Jackson's character was the true hero of the piece, which is why the movie began and ended with him.  He also has the most subtle yet glorious line, "Let's get into character."  He says it just before he and Travolta go into to kill the guys in the hotel room.  Also at play is that he and Jackson were a team, the reason he died the next day is because his partner wasn't there to back him up.  Just a thought to toss into the ring.

[Drezzy]

Evan, I find your comments on American Psycho (that it was just disturbing and pointless) to be laughable at best. Why? Because it's meant to be disturbing, and nothing in that movie, NOTHING, is pointless. The entire movie is a satire of 80's yuppiedom. The excessive violence, gratuitous sex scenes, and lack of soul to the main character (in this case, Patrick Bateman) are all necessary to get the main point across. The point? In the 1980's, yuppies were so self-centered and materialistic that they wouldn't even notice if one of their own was a downright psychopathic murderer. No scenes in this movie explain it better than the scene in the bathroom, where Patrick attempts to kill one of his co-workers for having a better business card. What does the co-worker think of this? Why, his co-worker believes Patrick is COMING ON TO HIM instead of attempting to kill him! More proof that yuppies were so self-centered.

As for TCM, I honestly and firmly believe the movie to be one of the downright most disturbing pieces of film to ever be made...which is why I love it. The last 20 minutes or so are so incredibly INTENSE that you fear for your own life as well as the girl's, and you wish the camera would pan away to another scene (as most other movies did at the time, and still do), but it doesn't happen. The camera just zooms in. The girl is screaming. The father is laughing. The sons are trying to help the grandfather. Leatherface is whining. The point to all this? The movie's disturbing images are its strongpoint, as well as having a damn good story.

[akiratubo]

Pulp Fiction is just another movie, with two gimmicks: somewhat more disturbing violence than normal and its non-linear nature.  That's it.

TCM I haven't seen in a very long time.  I saw it when I was around 9 years old and I remember being very bored.  Of course, I was also the five-year old kid who sat through The Exorcist without batting an eye.

[Pete B6K]

I think Chadzilla summed up what I meant by deep, layered character, which I stand by.  And I didn't say anything about changes, cos there's no reason that every character in a movie needs to change.  Would be kinda stupid is every character ended the movie different from how they started it, life just isnt like that.  If you feel you need changes, Jules had his whole epiphany and Vincent ended up dead.  I think he'd be offended if we didn't accept that was a change.

I have to agree with the anti-American Psycho people.  But I do accept that the disturbing imagery of the film kinda filled my view and may have caused me to miss any real quality in the film.  I do hate the film, didn't enjoy it in the slightest, but that dosen't mean I have to say it's a bad film.

I really liked Jaws.

Pete

[Evan3]

I dont know, I still think as far as the TCM goes, some of u are still making cases for me. I saw the documentary before the movie. Honestly, to know that this was a bunch of people (who if they werent in hollywood a la Winona Ryder, would be locked away right now) Who are crazy, making a crazy movie.

As for Pulp Fiction, I will admit that the non linear storytelling was fine (although it has been done much better since). However, that is not true, everyone changes, no matter what. Vincent was a log, death did not change him. He was dead to begin with, dead to miracles, dead to life changeing experiences, and dead stupid. In any case, I find it funny that no one defends the whole Bruce Willis story. Im sorry, but an ass watch and a strange wife does not make me like a guy, nor does the ludicrous ninja sword scene.

[Chadzilla]

Evan3 wrote:
>
> However, that is not true, everyone changes, no
> matter what. Vincent was a log, death did not change him. He
> was dead to begin with, dead to miracles, dead to life
> changeing experiences, and dead stupid.

You may have touched on something meaningful there.  Vega is murdered in the middle of the movie, yet reappears in the third act - the inference clear that he is indeed DEAD to the world around him.  The guy went to Amsterdamn and all that impressed him was having a beer in a movie and being able to smoke pot in public.  He was also a heroin addict.

> In any case, I find
> it funny that no one defends the whole Bruce Willis story. Im
> sorry, but an ass watch and a strange wife does not make me
> like a guy, nor does the ludicrous ninja sword scene.
>

Noir characters are seldom likable (although there are numerous examples of them being so).  I guess if I were to defend the Willis segment, then his character takes a stand, breaking free of his expected restraints (like Jackson) and striking out on his own (ironically he kills Vega, Jackson's partner doing so).  The ass watch can be seen as mulitple symbols - for the tenacity of the human will or just the one fragment of his former life that he cannot bring himself let go off and, because of that, it threatens his life.  That this symbol spent years in the rectom of his father and his father's friend can be seen as just what the filmmaker thought of such symbols.

Also compare free spirited nature Kietel and the epiphanized (sp? is that even a real word?) Jackson character with Travolta's, or Willis's and how the actions and reactions decide their fate.  The only time Vega comes close to an awakening is with his boss's wife - how does that event color his reaction to the fundamental change in his partner's life, or does it?