There are going be some lame parties in Provincetown on June 21st next year.....

There's also a rumor flying around right now that Tarantino wants Tera Patrick to star in a remake of Faster Pussycat Kill Kill. I think these rumors need to be taken with a box of salt.

Now that's a match made in heaven...or hell.

Don't forget the rumor that he'd remake Come Drink With Me...oh wait, they actually announced that.

Hopefully this Inglorious Bastards thing will keep him occupied for the next 30 years so he'll never get the chance.

I definitely understand the appeal of his films, and I love Jackie Brown (though I can longer look at Pulp Fiction with any kind of objectivity). The problem I have with QT from Kill Bill onward, is that his films are merely a pastiche of homages with his own "voice" laboriously painted on. It doesn't surprise me that Jackie Brown is (in my opinion) his best film, simply because by having other source material I think it forced him to reign in quite a bit, allowing his directorial prowess to come through. I do think he's capable of making great films, but I think his own good press, coupled by the hands off approach given to him by studios have done him a great disservice.

I'm a Tarantino apologist and I certainly understand why people find his personality so grating, and have a tendency to translate that disgust to his filmmaking (they aren't totally separate, of course). For me though, it is impossible to deny the staggering filmmaking prowess on display in the exhilarating Death Proof, probably Tarantino's purest cinematic effort. I don't know, that film is just so cool. It is him at his most indulgent, juvenile, and low-brow, but somehow the elements come together to produce a one-of-a-kind film. And I know that's something that isn't often said about his films, but despite all the "borrowing" - I find most of his films, after they've gone through the QT blender, to be exciting, new, and unqiue.

I can agree with that. Tarantino has been busy creating homages to his favorite genre's as of late. However, he is, as you said, very capable. If he was able to return to his 90's form again, we might be able to see something of his that actually impacts the film world originally. However, since then his dialogue has become less sharp and his style has become more diluted.

It's fascinating to watch the interviews with Tarantino from the mid-90s on the Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown DVDs and listen to him admit that he can't go on doing pop homages because his work will date fast. Essentially he identifies all his shortcomings and says that he's making Jackie Brown to stretch himself. Then the film failed, and he disappeared for six years, and finally came back making films that the AICN crowd can appreciate.

Incidentally, how do people feel about True Romance? I'd say it's the best thing Tarantino ever did besides Jackie Brown. And it works because Tony Scott has no image of himself to maintain; his only job is to make a fun movie.

One of my favorite movies, and above and beyond Tony's best. Ridley, when he was asked, said it was his favorite of his brother's work. Perfectly cast and a fun ride.

It did? It cost about $12 million to make and grossed about $70 million worldwide. By what standard is that a failure? It certainly didn't make $200 million like Pulp Fiction, but nobody ever expected it to.

My apologies. I didn't mean money. I was referring to the movie's initial reception. On its release, it was seen as a good movie, but no where close to the perceived genius of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. A couple years passed before people saw it as his best film. Tarantino even admitted that the film's reception was a blow to him in a profile for The New Yorker in '03.

I hadn't read the article you're referring to, but I just found it online through accessmylibrary.com: "The Movie Lover," from the 20 Oct. 2003 New Yorker. Pretty interesting stuff, although I don't think your recollection of what Tarantino said regarding the reception of Jackie Brown is accurate. The closest thing in the article I can find to him discussing the reaction to the movie is this:


That doesn't sound to me like he was disappointed with its reception. Maybe you're thinking of something he said in some other article?

As for Jackie Brown being his best movie, I do love it, but I think Pulp Fiction is still clearly his best. In the long video interview with him on the Jackie Brown DVD, he said something like, "Everyone's talking about how there's this serious, adult stuff in one of my movies now for the first time. It's nice to hear, but then you go watch Pulp Fiction again and see it there too." I've probably mangled the quote pretty badly, but he was definitely expressing the belief that he wasn't doing anything particularly more "mature" in Jackie Brown, because he felt that he already showed that side in Pulp Fiction.

I think I've found what we're looking for.

QT is a pretty polarizing figure just on the basis of his ego alone, but I still think he's one of the few American filmmakers who you can definitely apply the "auteur" label to with no reservations, because ALL his films, even his pastiches, are undeniably Tarantino, and no one else. There are so many acclaimed American filmmakers these days who crank out a series of "acclaimed" films every decade, but all have no real distinguishing vision or features in them that make them indicate that they are from a singularly unique mind of one person. I've never mistaken a QT film for someone else's, whereas there are other directors, like Steven Spielberg, whom I've sometimes misattributed his films with someone else's.

I still think Pulp Fiction is his best, with Jackie Brown gradually running upwards year by year, but still a safe second. PF just has this energy and impact to it that everyone "hip" American filmmmaker has been trying to copy (to lesser effect) for the past 15 or so years, and in my opinion, impact does make even a flawed movie a few notches higher just on the basis of its influential status alone.

Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (Quentin Tarantino, 2010?)

The lead has been chosen.

Please dear lord let every detail of that article be a terrible terrible joke!

Pussycat is a classic and should be given a big cinema and dvd re-release rather than a hack remake, espeically by someone who is supposed to know better (!?!) Tarantino go back to making your own films rather than trying to copy others or worse just putting your name to things.

On brightside though its prompted me to give my Russ Meyer Box set another airing so not all bad, might be a Lorna evening!

Tura Satana is 73 and could still kick Britney's ass. This news, if true, is a sad joke. I hope Russ Meyer rises from the grave and strangles QT with a black sock.

Why is this thread in the "New Films" forum?

A FPKK remake is inevitable. But I certainly don't want to see it turned into a chick gabfest by QT. I envision Asia Argento, Angelina Jolie and Chloe Sevigny as the trio.

I'd rather see someone who has more reverence for the source material, say John Waters, helm a Pussycat remake. I just don't like the sound of QT's proposed homage, what with Britney playing "the most important character" and all.

In what way is QT current?

I will go out on a limb to speculate that the characterization may arise from the fact that he is currently making films.

UGH. This is fucking unbelievable. I hope this is just some made-up story to get their name in the papers, it would be the most offensive remake ever for so many reasons. Has Tarantino completely lost his mind?

It is a made-up story. For what it's worth, I think it's a far lamer one than the other made-up story of the part going to Tera Patrick.

So far we have Britney Spears and Tera Patrick.

God help us.

I think we can all be honest and say Tarantino wants to bang both of them, at the same time, while on the set.