Yes but I'm not taking the bait..
Printable View
Yes but I'm not taking the bait..
Possibly, but I hated Reservoir Dogs so haven't watched his later films.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I think it would be interesting to hear a female opinion, however, as I think they may not agree with your view Graham
Oh Millipede (Emily) has excellent cinematic taste - although I'm less sure about all those TV box sets.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Never been a fan of Tarantino films.
Well Mrs S's opinion is that he is one of the all time greats although our favourite films do vary. We both rate pulp fiction and once upon a time in Hollywood as his best but then she loves Deathproof and Jackie Brown whereas I'd probably plump for Inglourious Basterds or kill Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I think reservoir dogs was very much of its time and hasn't aged well. Pulp fiction however remains as compulsive viewing as ever and quotes still crop up regularly in our family. Indeed it wasn't until our girls came of age and watched the film that they realised the true meaning of a lot of mom and dad's conversation.
"That is a tasty burger"
it's only a couple of letters, but that could be crucial to the writing of comic dialogue and Graham might be on your case.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteS
Well I did write Inglourious Basterds but my phone chose to correct it. Don't you love modern technology!? I'm sure Graham will enjoy the chance to make fun later...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Pulp Fiction is pure movie and a work of natural genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteS
It was made 30 years ago and is still a stunning piece. Reservoir Dogs was the (say) first film he directed and a startling debut but he has now directed (say) ten movies, written more and produced even more. Once Upon A Time is very good and very clever (the novelisation less so) and maybe too clever with its cinematic "in-jokes" but it isn't the tour-de-force of Pulp Fiction.
Pulp Fiction is 154 minutes and you cannot take your eyes off the screen. Compare that with, say, the tedious, never-ending "James Bond" films and you can compare an inspired natural film maker and a bunch of tradesmen working for payday.
Tarantino will never do anything better - but neither will anyone else.
That's some statement Graham ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I did start watching Pulp Fiction when it was on TV many, many years ago, but I gave up after about half an hour as it seemed too dark, violent and silly. I had previously endured Reservoir Dogs, so I didn't think it would get any better and chose to cut my losses.
I think you're a bit taller than me, so that probably explains why 'a work of natural genius' goes over my head :)
That was my experience with Pulp Fiction - tried - switched off - never tried again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is my regular repeat film.
Well one I am capable of...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
From time to time a film director changes western cinema so signicantly that it is never the same again. So Orson Welles in Citizen Kane (still regarded by most observers as the "greatest" film ever made), Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, Sergei Eisenstein, Jean-Luc Godard, probably Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini, maybe Sergio Leone,...if you go way back to 1915 and Birth of a Nation then DW Griffith.
We have had gangster or film noir films since the 1930s with many great films made by great directors along the way but experiencing Pulp Fiction is like stepping into an avalanche of new cinematic experience within that genre.
And Pulp Fiction was such a step change that such a huge change cannot be made again within that milieu.
It isn't necessary to like Tarantino's films to recognise his importance and, as I said, his best days are behind him. But that applies to most iconoclasts, once you have torn down one temple tearing down another one is just a bit deja vu
.
"No Time to Die" was on TV over xmas - I gave up very early on as it was just dull and predictable. The advertisement breaks did not help - without them I might have persisted a bit longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Yes, very arty Graham. But what about Fritz Lang's Metropolis from 1927, you remember it don't you Graham? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Ha ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
I stopped watching James Bond films around 40 years ago when I concluded that the pre-credit sequence was always the best bit but there was so much fuss about NTTD over Christmas that I weakened - but not for very long.
Looking for its running time on the web - 163 minutes, ie longer than Pulp Fiction - I came across the following review:
"The time to die is before watching this movie".
Well I thought it was funny!
Yes I do. And "M" and much else. I have paid my dues to German expressionist cinema.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
One of the interesting aspects of pre-WW2 Hollywood is how many German film directors, actors, composers, writers,...generally with jewish backgrounds, fled Nazi Germany to become very successful in and very influential on American cinema. The entire film noir movement can be traced back to the German influence. During WW2 there was a similar exodus of French talent to the USA but not exactly for the same reasons and with much less impact - and most returned to France after the war.
Well I know Graham and I have had differing opinions on here but I wholeheartedly agree with his posts on Tarantino and Pulp Fiction.
It was a game changer - incredible script, superb plot, nothing like it before or since and usually in my top 5 films of all time
I have always maintained you need to watch it at least 3 times in order to make chronological sense of it - how many can name the truly final scene?
I'm not bothering with more boosters, but i'm too young to matter anyway. The way i see it covid DNA will be all over the place in all sorts of other viruses that i'm getting exposed to every day.
Nay lad. Chin up !Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
So I was getting into my car, and this bloke says to me 'Can you give me a lift?' I said 'Sure, you look great, the world's your oyster, go for it.'
Tommy Cooper
:D
There's a today's joke thread you know :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
Consultant Cardiologist on BBC News (!!!) yesterday discussing statins and also his view regarding the mRNA vaccine and possible heart disease link (13/01/2023). It's good to see how some wider views are allowed to be aired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkBt25XZ0NU
I was so shocked that the BBC would allow anything less than worship of the vaccine program on their network, that I watched the whole clipQuote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
It was meant to be a discussion on further use of statins, and one of the news captions that scrolled across said statins could be prescribed to 15 million more people in England. That in itself was shocking enough
I'm sure we've had a link to this Cardiologist, when he was giving a 90 minute lecture about the testing of Covid vaccines, on this thread before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
I can't seem to find it though.
As far as I'm aware the background for Malhotra is that he is was strongly pro-vaccine to the extent that he took part in a Government programme to promote it amongst ethnic minorities who were slower at taking up the vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
He did the rounds on GMB etc to speak out in favour of taking it and had 2 jabs himself.
I haven't seen a 90 minute lecture about the testing with him, but I have seen the efficacy of the testing being called in to question on some videos.
This story of Maddy, who was part of the Pfizer trial on children, is quite harrowing.
https://twitter.com/PierreKory/statu...sj7WDmt88CYd68
Pfizer to cover any medical costs resulting from any adverse reactions with circa 1200 children taking part in the vaccine trial.
Maddy had serious adverse reaction following second jab.
Hospital say it's psychological.
Pfizer don't cover bills.
Turns out one of the consultant who advised on Maddy's condition in the background, was a consultant working for Pfizer on the trial.
If this is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, this vaccine trial should have been stopped and Pfizer vaccines should never have been passed for use in children.
But let's be clear, none of these vaccines have ever been approved.
They are still under Emergency Use Authorisation.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/mu...ss-conference/Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
Thanks Mossdog.
That's the one.
Prof Marc Dweck, chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, on Malhotra: “I would strongly urge patients to disregard his comments, which seem to be more concerned with furthering his profile (he does not have a cardiology career to speak of)”
I see Dweck has posted his condemnation on Twitter and The Guardian has also echoed the hatchet job. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...disease-deaths although I'm not sure being supported by a rag that has sold out disinterested journalism for ideological activism some time ago adds to the credibility of his attack. It's extraordinary the lengths of cancellation that Malhotra has been subject to from the usual quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Interesting how the rag uses terms like "Experts have criticised" and "Scientists have described the doctor as “hijacking” an interview" to suggest that Malhotra isn't an 'expert' too. He's hardly some swivelled-eyed, creationist believing that the planet is being run by lizard people.
It may well turn out that Malhotra's claim that the vaccine is centrally associated with the marked rise in excess deaths is not born out. However, the vicious condemnation and deriding of an expert health professional is not how this debate should be conducted, and the nature of the personal attacks on him does in itself raise suspicions of a cover-up, even if there isn't one.
I imagine Prof Dweck has some really lucrative funding streams.
Maybe he could put some of it to good use and investigate the huge increase in excess deaths in the UK and many other countries.
His basic argument is, I don't know what is causing the problem, but it's not that and I'm 100% sure of it to such an extent that he shouldn't be allowed to say it as it's "DANGEROUS"!
That should raise red flags.
On my exercise bike this morning, I watched this little gem from Gaad Saad.
If my grandma had balls, she'd be my grandpa.
He's taking down a renowned philosopher Sam Harris, who's come out and said....
well I'll leave it to you guys - I enjoyed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoc7dT1tkHo
Seems he had some "speaking money" from Pfizer and he's also done 5 papers with Dr Giorgos Papanastasiou who is currently a Manager in Data Science, Center for Digital Innovation of Pfizer, Thessaloniki, Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
His contribution in the Guardian has also made an impression on John Watt, a patient of Dwecks for 14 months.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-john...aign=p_cf+shar
Apparently Dweck says he's fine, so he paid from these funds for a PET scan in London which shows Myocarditis.
Dweck refuses to accept the results of the scan.