I have a beef with two movies. I will start with the one which wont get people as upset and that movie is.
Pulp Fiction: I just saw it in my college theatre and it was a piece OF crap. seriously, there was no point. All the characters was bad. None of them had a real change, except for maybe, maybe, Sam. L. Jackson's character. They didnt even have Travolta dance for too long, and it was the last time he ever danced. I mean seriously what was the point except to have a film with overly gratuitous violence. The only good thing was that Christopher Walken (whos part was stupid) and Steve Buscemi (who was on screen for 30 seconds) happened to be in it.The scene with the raping of Ving Rhames and Bruce Willis was just disgusting. There was no reason in the world to have something so disturbing in this movie. It also gave me unpleasent memories of.......
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: This movie ranks down as one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. It was sick and sad and violent all at the same time. Look, every now and then, I like violence for no reason, like in video games, or action flics, and even horror flicks and this movie crossed the line. It WAS NOT scary in the least, all of the scares were predictable and Leatherface is FAT. When he did that chase scene with that girl, I thought I was watching a Warner Brothers cartoon, the way he moved the chainsaw in front of the camera. Plus, it was truly disgusting that a family would do this, not scary and it was something the world would have been better without. It doesnt even have a concrete ending, just a stupid ending. The one good thing of this film was the room of bones and the filming, but that was it. If you havent seen this movie, dont, you wont want to waste so much of your life and if you have, I wish I could refund your time.
I think to really appreciate Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you have to see it in your teens. In high school there were a few of us who thought it was great. I tried to watch it again in my mid-20s and didn't like it very much.
To your list of redeeming qualities, I would add the opening narration by John Larroquette. Didn't recognize the voice the first time I saw it. I don't think I'd really gotten into watching Night Court at that time.
I'm inclined to agree with some of your points on Pulp Fiction, but I enjoyed it overall.
My problem with Pulp Fiction is that I think it influenced independent filmakers in the wrong way. After Pulp Fiction came out, everyone tried to make their own gritty, violent drama/action movies.
I found Texas Chainsaw Massacre interesting in that it had a main character in a wheelchair. That always stuck with me for some reason. And the fact that he didn't get killed until near the end. I like when a movie is brave enough to take a chance like that and show us a character that we don't normally see. Other than that, I could take or leave the movie either way. Doesn't really do much for me, like some people, but I don't hate it either.
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
It does shock at times, I usually fast forward through the rape scene, I've seen it once, I get the point, don't need to see it again. But it was a necessary plot point. Necessary as much as any plot point in a movie is. You can't suddenly decide that things like that just shouldn't be shown in movies, because every movie has it's own (hopefully) unique plot with various things that other movies won't have. In the same way (but to a more extreme extent) you could make the same argument against 'Bambi'. It was the writer's decision to have Bambi's mother being shot, nothing compelled them to put it in there, but thats plot for you.
If the violence in the movie disturbs you that much, don't watch it. But just because you don't want to watch a film, dosen't make it a bad film. For example, I was really impressed with the writing, acting, direction etc of 'Kids', its a very well made film, but I find it too depressing to watch, and probably will never see it again.
And the character's in the film don't need to 'change'. But as the film goes on, you learn more and more about the characters. Peeling off the layers and all that jazz.
I'll leave TCM to someone else, cos I've only seen it once and don't remember it that well.
Pete
Evan3 wrote:
>
> I have a beef with two movies. I will start with the one
> which wont get people as upset and that movie is.
>
> Pulp Fiction: I just saw it in my college theatre and it was
> a piece OF crap. seriously, there was no point. All the
> characters was bad. None of them had a real change, except
> for maybe, maybe, Sam. L. Jackson's character. They didnt
> even have Travolta dance for too long, and it was the last
> time he ever danced. I mean seriously what was the point
> except to have a film with overly gratuitous violence. The
> only good thing was that Christopher Walken (whos part was
> stupid) and Steve Buscemi (who was on screen for 30 seconds)
> happened to be in it.The scene with the raping of Ving Rhames
> and Bruce Willis was just disgusting. There was no reason in
> the world to have something so disturbing in this movie.
>
Well, I liked the movie, but I have not seen it in quite sometime. I know the jumbling of the stories had something to do with the movie's intended statement on redemption, forgiveness, and what not (and as a meditation on, as bad as it can get, it can get a hell of a lot worse). As a noir buff I also like how some characters just stay nasty.
>
> The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: This movie ranks down as one of
> the WORST movies I have ever seen. It was sick and sad and
> violent all at the same time. Look, every now and then, I
> like violence for no reason, like in video games, or action
> flics, and even horror flicks and this movie crossed the
> line. It WAS NOT scary in the least, all of the scares were
> predictable and Leatherface is FAT. When he did that chase
> scene with that girl, I thought I was watching a Warner
> Brothers cartoon, the way he moved the chainsaw in front of
> the camera. Plus, it was truly disgusting that a family would
> do this, not scary and it was something the world would have
> been better without. It doesnt even have a concrete ending,
> just a stupid ending. The one good thing of this film was the
> room of bones and the filming, but that was it. If you havent
> seen this movie, dont, you wont want to waste so much of your
> life and if you have, I wish I could refund your time.
Well, don't watch Deliverance or The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, or I Spit on Your Grave. Heck, skip Death Trap as well. And if you didn't like Pulp Fiction, steer well clear of Chinatown and a few other neo noir thillers from the 70s. All come from the same 70s era school of nasty and disturbing horror over 'scary' horror. Leatherface was fat, yeah so what, that's about the only part of criticism I can kick at as weak (you didn't like the movies, fine, what am I going to do, insult for not toeing to the geek line?) - many serial killers are not well known for the muscle man build, most are just flabby weirdos like me. The chase was interesting, on the commentary track, Gunnar Hansen (who played Leatherface and is now a well respected poet and literary scholar of Herman Melville) talked about how he had to wave the saw around and do some trimming becase Marilyn Burns could not out run him, so he had to slow himself down. Also his shoes were leather soled and he slipped and fell...with a real chainsaw that was running. Everybody on the set had a moment of shear terror as that buzzing saw whipped around and fell right....beside him, close call that explains his rather hestiant movements with the saw in a few scenes.
Well I for one think certain slasher franchise starters, especially the original PSYCHO, are way overrated. I also think JAWS is a peice of crap.
Hell YES! Texas Chainsaw Massacre is, in my opinion, a painfully goofy assed movie. Can't stand it, hate it. I also thought it was dull as hell, and I wanted to personally kill the kid in the wheelchair! I did(gasp)like part 2 though, I mean it was bad, but I like that. And it had a sense of fun about it. Someone made a statement about "toeing the geek line" I think that's a pretty brave statement, and thanks. I also think(again) that Halloween sucks big hairy balls.
Pulp Fiction, I liked. I saw in the theater when it came out, and didn't know quite what to make of it. But, I think it improves with repeat viewings, and the characters are awesome. The gimp part is pretty off putting, but at least it's brief. And the Chris Walken and Harvey Keitel roles totally ran off with the show.
I love TCM. And it doesn't bother me if someone doesn't like it. I think TCM is a terrifying movie, not necessarily a scary or horrorfying film. Also, remember, TCM basically started the whole slasher genre. The film might seem predictable or boring because EVERY horror film made afterwards copied it, including the concept of the sole survivor being female. You have to put TCM in that context.
Anyway, I think a movie about cannibals is supposed to be "sick and sad and violent." What's the opposite? A happy, cheerful, non-violent cannibal movie? LOL! Seriously, TCM is a groundbreaking horror film. It has a documentary feel to it. And it's also a very dark comedy. If you listen to the commentary on the DVD, everyone has a good laugh at several scenes. But the last scene at the diner table is twisted and insane and it's understandable why some people might not like it. These people are sick. So it's only normal for the film to reflect this.
As for PULP FICTION, I've avoided it and every other Quentin T. movie, so I can't say if it's good.
As for overrated movies, I have to agree about JAWS. When you think about it, how scary can a movie about a killer shark be? Just don't go in the water. End of story. LOL!
BryceDavid wrote:
>
> As for overrated movies, I have to agree about JAWS. When you
> think about it, how scary can a movie about a killer shark
> be? Just don't go in the water. End of story. LOL!
Well Jaws is my favorite movie of all time, saw it in 75 at the tender age of 8 and nothing has ever surpassed its impact on me. The logical illogic of your argument defeats me. People are fairly helpless in the water and a shark is a pretty freaky looking predator, and when you are in the water you are on its turf, not your own. Stay out of the water, sure. But what if the town didn't TELL you there was a shark out there? Which is just what happened in Jaws. First attack, the sheriff wanted to close the beach, the town didn't. A shark wasn't a serious threat, it was an isolated incident, the shark was probably gone, yadda-yadda-yadda. Then comes the second attack. The sheriff knows this isn't a threat that will go away, but no one wants to listen. Then comes the third and final attack, after that comes the hunt. Because this shark isn't going to go away and it is standing in the way of the town making its life blood money, so it has to go. The part that gives Jaws so much power is the depth of the characterizations of its three leads and how the story uses them in the movie's second half. Brody has a tremendous level of guilt over the second and third attacks, because he honestly believes he could have stopped them from happening if he had only applied more pressure to both the Mayor and the Amity Town Council. Quint is driven by his nightmarish war memories to conquer the sea and all in it. And Hooper, who lives for the thrill of the ride (I think he wants to recreate that traumatic yet fascination inducing thresher shark attack of his youth, something his adventure on the Orca does), almost winds up in the belly of the beast (in fact he would have if it weren't for a costly error in the second unit crew's filming of the cage attack). The big twist that made Jaws a hit was watching these three men slowly unravel as this shark somehow continually outwits them, which they know is impossible. It's just a big, dumb fish, but it quickly becomes something more - it becomes a tireless and daunting physical manifestation of their inner most demons/obessions. I think it is the movie's second half, and mostly Quint, that really made people fall in love with the movie, the first half of it is a rather standard monster movie (if you don't want to get et, just stay out of the...fill in the blank...idiot).
And that is my defensive reading of Jaws, my favorite movie or all time.
Was 'Jaw's the movie based on the book or the other way around? I remember the book being really different from the movie. Hooper has an affair with Brody's wife and ends up getting eaten at the end.....I think there was other stuff too, but I can't remember since it's been so long.
It was based on Benchley's novel.
Oh yeah? try watching "Attack of the Puppet People" I have no words to describe this flick. Just get it, watch it and scratch your head when "The End" (finally) pops up on your screen.
Hail!!! The Great Bert I. Gordon!!!! For He hath Stundeth me!
I think people get disappointed by TCM because it's not all that gory, but it's one of my favorites too. I like the sick humor of it more than anything else.
The story of the making of the film is also interesting--the guy who played Franklin claimed he acted like that off the set during the shooting because he was afraid he would "lose" the character otherwise, because Franklin was so obnoxious and whiny. He also isolated himself from the other cast members.
I also like how Gunnar Hansen kept having to find stuff to do in the woods to slow him down because Marilyn Burns was so slow that he kept catching her, so he sawed random branches from trees every so often just to pace himself.
Pulp Fiction was very much a movie of its time--I think it doesn't deserve either the excessive praise or the excessive derision heaped on it at times. It's just a good movie with a few flaws, but overall I think it was probably one of my favorite films of the 90s. But I can see how it alienated some people in the audience, especially those who weren't used to non-linear storytelling.
Pulp Fiction was a "good watch." Like it's title. There is nothing truly wonderful about it, but if you just sit and watch it it carries you along pretty effortlessly. You don't have to think to hard. It doesn't bog down and it's not so very fenetic that it overloads the senses. It's just there.
TCM, I've never seen.
Jaws is just Moby Dick with a cookie cutter horror preamble attached to it.
The thing that all three seem to share is good execution. They were all "pulled off" well.
I disagree with you Evan3.
I think that if you took a poll most others would disagree with you too.
These two films (Pulp Fiction & Texas Chainsaw Massacre) are pure genius.
Plain & simple.
I own both of them and am proud to announce so!
You just have to dig a little deeper with these two particular movies than most others to see them for what they truly are.
Masterpieces in almost every possible aspect!
(Maybe someday you will)
[playful tease] You just don't 'get it', nyah-nyah. [/playful tease]
:-)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?