Park Life

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away. Post your 100 favourite films again mate, I fancy a laugh. You'll get your chance to rape me when I put up me fav films of 2006 rasta. The Squid and the Whale was good. Btw Parkster, did you ever check out 'Lovers of the Arctic Circle' (mentioned it on N-O ages ago). Pure class and reet up your street I reckon. Plus, it gets extra points for being dead obscure That is in 'your' file along with John Fante. Thanks for reminding me......Need to order 15 or 20 dvd's v soon if I am to get through the winter. Are you ever going to use your KG membership that I went through hell to get for you - not really - or what!?! I've got loads of invites now, like, if anyone's interested? Getting a new pc in Feb with a mahoosive hard drive...Then it will be game on Indi. You are aware I was very grateful for your efforts earlier this year...Yes?

Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. Why though? Can you not judge him based purely on his films and not what others make of him or don't make of him? What others say or think should be irrelevant. Why is there even a need to discuss whether he's overrated or not, who cares. Virign to film threads alert! .....cause I display the same fawning of my fav films/dir as the geeks that irritate me. I love my films, all kinds of films, but they are just films, you watch them, and that's it. Good to while away two hours or so. Anyway I prefer more productive things to TV and DVD, like posting on message boards

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away. Post your 100 favourite films again mate, I fancy a laugh. You'll get your chance to rape me when I put up me fav films of 2006 rasta. The Squid and the Whale was good. Btw Parkster, did you ever check out 'Lovers of the Arctic Circle' (mentioned it on N-O ages ago). Pure class and reet up your street I reckon. Plus, it gets extra points for being dead obscure That is in 'your' file along with John Fante. Thanks for reminding me......Need to order 15 or 20 dvd's v soon if I am to get through the winter.

Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. Why though? Can you not judge him based purely on his films and not what others make of him or don't make of him? What others say or think should be irrelevant. Why is there even a need to discuss whether he's overrated or not, who cares. Virign to film threads alert! .....cause I display the same fawning of my fav films/dir as the geeks that irritate me.

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away. Post your 100 favourite films again mate, I fancy a laugh. You'll get your chance to rape me when I put up me fav films of 2006 rasta.

Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. It was a dig at HTT's football knowledge tttt. tbf tttt...tttt..tt..

Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me.

If you haven't been to at least one indi film festival you shouldn't really be allowed to post on this thread love.

Yes...Yes and Yes!!

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson just to name the A's. Studio's are opening production houses to cater exclusively for more arthouse fare that can only be funded by the bankable directors above. I regard Ritchie as an Auteur... Also Nick Love, but i guess thats UK , To be honest though the last 5 years of mainstream hollywood films have been Producer lead and thats obvious in the product I'd say the last 10 years, but yes I agree wholly.

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson just to name the A's. Studio's are opening production houses to cater exclusively for more arthouse fare that can only be funded by the bankable directors above. That has been a v recent and postive move I agree. But they are essentially indi directors with poorly distributed work with small profit margins. But yes more power to their elbow especially Paul-Thomas ad Woody.

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is.

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. SODERBERGH Life Interrupted (2007) (in production) The Argentine (2008) (pre-production) Guerrilla (2008) (pre-production) Ocean's Thirteen (2007) (post-production) ... aka 13 (USA: promotional abbreviation) The Good German (2006) Looking forward to this. [/b]Bubble (2005/I) "Unscripted" (2005) TV Series (pilot) Ocean's Twelve (2004) [/i]CACK Eros (2004) (segment "Equilibrium") ... aka Eros (France) "K Street" (2003) TV Series Solaris (2002) V. DISSAPOINTED THAT I WAS JUST A FAX OF THE ORIGINAL. Full Frontal (2002) Ocean's Eleven (2001) ... aka 11 (USA: promotional abbreviation) ... aka O11 (USA: informal short title) Traffic (2000) EXCELLENT ... aka Traffic - Die Macht des Kartells (Germany) Erin Brockovich (2000) The Limey (1999) On the whole Soderbergh I'm v keen on and there is a rich vein of layering in his work.

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget.

Have you seen Babel HP?

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one fully. The other two probably.....

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie?

Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away.

Watched them for the first time recently, and I agree, although I think the first one spanks the second. For me he could have condensed a bit and got them into one film but they are great. As for his other efforts, I like Jackie Brown a lot and Pulp Fiction is awesome, could watch it any time. But Resevoir Dogs is probably my favourite film of all time. Agree with that. He comes up with the reasons for the split in the making of Kill Bill on the DVD, but I am not convinced it wasn't about $$$$$$$. With clever editing it could have been reduced to less than 3 hours easily. Reservoir Dogs would make a superb theatre play. I bet HF is mortified by that prospect. Good idea. And give it a Beckettian twist.

Directors aren't important in Hollywood.

From The New Yorker "In this Quentin Tarantino fantasy pastiche of samurai and martial-arts films, the trunk of a body, its head lopped off, will spurt blood like a fountain. We know that the non-stop violence is not meant to be real: for starters, the blood looks like cranberry juice. Yet Tarantino is working in a photographic medium, and the real-world associations are not so easy to shrug off. Tarantino's heroine, Uma Thurman, kills another female warrior in front of the woman's little girl, and the child doesn't react. Tarantino wants the shock of a mother killed in front of her daughter without the audience undergoing any discomfort at all. The movie is what's formally known as decadence and commonly known as crap. Saying that it's an homage to long-established genres in Hong Kong doesn't reduce its pop-nihilistic stupidity. Some of the sequences have a scintillating visual flair, but you come out feeling nothing at all. And this is only the first half. -David Denby " The New Yorker That sums it up for me.

Overrated tbh. That is the word. I am ambivalent about Tinsle boy these days.

Yes. He has done some good things, but you later find all yer favourite scenes have just been cut and pasted from some of HIS fav films. Cut and pasted well to make good films though. Practically everyone plagiarises and if it was so easy to do it well loads of films would make great films just by pinching a few scenes from cult Asian cinema. Also, how many scenes has he actually taken almost without changing from other films apart from the one at the end of Reservoir Dogs taken from City on Fire? Genuine question btw, as I haven't read enough about it or watched enough Asian cinema to know. David Mamet: [i]"The old phrase is 'Talent borrows, genius robs.' I don't mind if somebody wants to write like me. The only thing that disturbs me is if they do it better... First I write the best script I can and then I put on my director's hat and say, 'What am I going to do with this piece of crap?'"

Yes. He has done some good things, but you later find all yer favourite scenes have just been cut and pasted from some of HIS fav films.

he was in hospital at the time All this stuff is very sad and all, but it is all a distraction from the fact that he is only a very average manager.