posted
Also, am I the only one who didn't know that "Reservoir Dogs" blatantly ripped off another film--and not in a cutesy "paying homages" sort of way?
posted
I've seen it. Have you? If so, what did you think? Are we doing a spoiler-free discussion? If not, I think you ought to warn people. Personally, I quite liked it. I hesitate to say more at the moment... Don't want to ruin it for anyone.
I've also seen 'City on Fire', and that video impresses me not at all. Yes, there are similarities. I wouldn't be surprised if Tarantino found 'City on Fire' inspiring. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a full-blown rip-off. None of the elements that make 'Reservoir Dogs' special and unique are really present in 'City on Fire,' but all of the things the two movies have in common can be found in at least a dozen other heist films.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Generally and middlingly positive reviews on Metacritic and everyone's saying that this is the best thing he's made since Pulp Fiction.
I wonder what happened to Tarantino.
Of course, let's say Tarantino does get back in the swing of things after this. That'll be good news for Guy Richie, who will likely waste no time using this resurrected body of filmmaking style to crib off of.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: I've seen it. Have you? If so, what did you think? Are we doing a spoiler-free discussion? If not, I think you ought to warn people. Personally, I quite liked it. I hesitate to say more at the moment... Don't want to ruin it for anyone
I will go see it very soon, and I updated the OP.
quote:I've also seen 'City on Fire', and that video impresses me not at all. Yes, there are similarities. I wouldn't be surprised if Tarantino found 'City on Fire' inspiring. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a full-blown rip-off. None of the elements that make 'Reservoir Dogs' special and unique are really present in 'City on Fire,' but all of the things the two movies have in common can be found in at least a dozen other heist films.
For it to be a rip-off I don't think it's necessary that Tarantino need borrow every element that makes "Reservoir Dogs" unique. It's one of my favorite films but I always assumed he was responsible for 100% of the story, or, at least, the unique combination of story elements that comprise the films plot. Now I find out that a fair amount of it is taken from another diamond heist film? It doesn't lessen my appreciation of "Reservoir Dogs" but it does make me lose a little respect for Tarantino, especially as he went around claiming that he had never seen "City on Fire" when the similarities were raised.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, anyway, what I meant about spoilers is that you ought to put "Spoilers" in the thread title, as a matter of general good form. Because there are some doozies.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And by the way, I think it's entirely possible that Tarantino never saw City on Fire. Coincidences do happen. Or he could have ripped it off. I don't know. The problem with that video, though, is that you could take Reservoir Dogs dialogue and mix it over the top of all kinds of scenes from all kinds of movies to highlight similarities -- or to give the impression of similarities where none or few exist. Which is what happened in that video, in my opinion.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know TL, the evidence is pretty damning in that video.
You have a movie with a group of criminals pulling jewelry heist. One of the starts shooting during the heist. They are chased by the cops who show up suprisingly quickly on the scene. One of the robbers is an undercover cop. He gets shot by a random person along the way, shoots back and kills them, looks suprised and troubled by this. They retreat to a large warehouse. Where he is slowly bleeding to death while the rest argue about a snitch. one guy calls out the cop, the guy who's been with the cop the whole time defends him, they all point guns at eachother and eventually all shoot each other. at the end only the cop and the guy who stood up for him are left. as the police are closing in the cop admits to being a cop, the guy shoots him and the police come in and shoot him.
And that description fits both movies.
It's a little much isn't it? That being said, I still love Reservoir Dogs. It was an awesome movie. Liked it better than Pulp Fiction.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: And by the way, I think it's entirely possible that Tarantino never saw City on Fire. Coincidences do happen. Or he could have ripped it off. I don't know. The problem with that video, though, is that you could take Reservoir Dogs dialogue and mix it over the top of all kinds of scenes from all kinds of movies to highlight similarities -- or to give the impression of similarities where none or few exist. Which is what happened in that video, in my opinion.
Well, if the events that seemed to be going on in the Hong Kong movie were in fact what was going on in that movie, then the similarities would be at least difficult to dismiss. Have you seen the film in question?
I'm not even against the idea of Tarantino borrowing liberally from such a movie, or even going so far as to graft the central conflict of the movie directly onto his film. That doesn't really matter to me, because the nuances of Reservoir Dogs are what's important about the movie. But anyway, it's also possible that the only material bearing any similarity between the movies is in the youtube video, in which case, the he didn't copy much if he did any copying at all.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I don't know TL, the evidence is pretty damning in that video.
You have a movie with a group of criminals pulling jewelry heist. One of the starts shooting during the heist. They are chased by the cops who show up suprisingly quickly on the scene. One of the robbers is an undercover cop. He gets shot by a random person along the way, shoots back and kills them, looks suprised and troubled by this. They retreat to a large warehouse. Where he is slowly bleeding to death while the rest argue about a snitch. one guy calls out the cop, the guy who's been with the cop the whole time defends him, they all point guns at eachother and eventually all shoot each other. at the end only the cop and the guy who stood up for him are left. as the police are closing in the cop admits to being a cop, the guy shoots him and the police come in and shoot him.
And that description fits both movies.
The video doesn't establish that description of the other movie, it *implies* such a description. The movie could take a complete left turn for all you know, or these could be the only elements of similarity. You don't have enough evidence to claim all that about the Hong Kong flick, if all you've seen is that video.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I'm sure there are many other plot elements and nuances to City on Fire that Tarintino didn't touch. And I'm sure he added much to the movie that wasn't present in City on Fire.
the description I gave above fits both movies, regardless of what other elements either of those movies contain. Do you dispute that?
I was directly responding to TL's coments, which were this:
quote:And by the way, I think it's entirely possible that Tarantino never saw City on Fire. Coincidences do happen. Or he could have ripped it off. I don't know. The problem with that video, though, is that you could take Reservoir Dogs dialogue and mix it over the top of all kinds of scenes from all kinds of movies to highlight similarities -- or to give the impression of similarities where none or few exist. Which is what happened in that video, in my opinion.
i think it's most likely that Tarantino DID see this movie, since the connections are a bit too much to be a coincidence. I don't think the video was giving impressions where few or none exist, though yes, it's obviously focusing on the similarities and not the differences.
Maybe my description wouldn't be a good "review" of City on Fire, but that wasn't my intent.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: the description I gave above fits both movies, regardless of what other elements either of those movies contain. Do you dispute that?
I do if you are basing it on that one video. I haven't seen the other movie, so I can't say. It can be inferred from the video that the description applies to both, however the video may be misleading. You are assuming far too much, in my opinion, and there's no reason to do so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: i think it's most likely that Tarantino DID see this movie, since the connections are a bit too much to be a coincidence...
This is fastest mainstream media reference to the issue
quote:Not exactly heartening from an artist who was accused of plagiarizing City on Fire, a 1987 movie by the Hong Kong director Ringo Lam, for his film debut. (Tarantino admits being influenced by City on Fire, but he denies ripping it off.)
posted
That said, Tarantino has always been pretty up-front about greatly enjoying many Hong Kong movies that are less well-known in the West. For the oddest reason, that means that over the years he's been on the commentary tracks of several Hong Kong films when they are redistributed in the West even if he has no real connection to them.
On the other hand, I don't think Hong Kong directors generally care all that much. Many movie concepts get passed back and forth across the Pacific and as long as people are aware of which movie is playing homage to which, it seems ok to me as well. One of the last examples was "Infernal Affairs" which was re-made as "The Departed" and the director seemed pretty cool with it.
Just think of it like re-imagining films for a Western audience *shrug* It kind of has to be done.
(As an aside, a foul-mouthed Tarantino-like figure does show up in Stephen Chow's King of Comedy as an American consultant who quits over his character being cast. The whole movie parodies many aspects of the Hong Kong movie industry)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it twice this weekend. I thought it was pretty excellent. And I really did enjoy it even more the second time through, when I could anticipate and savor the lines and characters and scenarios.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
I like how many of the major scenes centered around dialogue between two people with obvious (although not discussed) unbalanced power.
For instance, the first scene with Col. Hans Landa and the Dairy Farmer father. It was obvious (especially the second time) that Hans knew about the hidden Jews, but the father couldn't be sure he knew. So the entire scene was a great battle of calm demeanor until Hans asked directly "You are hiding enemies of the state, no?"
Also Aldo Raine and the German Sergent right before he was killed with a bat. The Sergent knew he was going to die, and every word he said and thing he did was in full awareness of this.
Soshanna Dreyfus and Fredrick Zoller. She clearly hated his guts, and he clearly knew this, but he was a Nazi soldier and she was a nobody. So (nearly) every exchange was charged and off-balance.
Hans Landa and Soshanna Dreyfus during the strudel scene. I think Hans is the creepiest Nazi I've ever seen portrayed because he clearly revels in making people awkward and he loves to draw out formalities in the process.
Hans Landa and Bridget van Hammersmark right before he strangled her. After she felt the shoe in his coat pocket, the look she gave him gave it all away, but Hans still had her try on the shoe.
Hans Landa and Aldo Raine and "The Little Man" right before he elected to change the course of history. Hans played with words and loved the power he held over them, until he 'conditionally surrendered.'
I liked how he split the movie into chapters, and how many of the chapters would hold their own, perhaps with a little exposition for context, as short films or short stories. The Dairy Farm scene and the basement tavern scene, for instance. For the Dairy Farm scene, everything you needed to know was explained right there (it being the first scene, and all), and was quite brilliant. For the basement/tavern scene, you would just need to know that the actress was a spy, that the English Spy was an English Spy, and that the other two were anti-Nazi agents. I think that scene would still be excellent, stand-alone.
A also enjoyed the two moments when Samuel L. Jackson's narration broke the third wall and explained Hugo Stiglitz' character, and the nitrate film's ability to burn. Some people I've talked to didn't like that, but I thought it was very Tarantino-esque.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kama: Did Landa know who Soshanna was in the strudel scene?
How could he have, and behaved the way he did? Surely he'd kill her, knowing the risk of allowing her to live. I'm just guessing.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he never got a good look at her as she was running away, and she changed her name. There was no way he could know what she looked like, and probably wouldn't have guessed she would be owning a cinema anyways.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda thought the fact he ordered her milk might have meant he knew who she was. Or maybe he just likes milk Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saw the movie, but unfortunately my Czech was not good enough to get a deep sense of the non-English dialogue throughout the film. We ended up trading information at the end to try and figure out what was said in different scenes. I was able to follow most of the movie in general from the Czech subtitles, in combination with the French and German, but there were some glaring holes in my understanding- I'll have to see it again in the Anglophone version.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what beverage goes better with strudel than a cold glass of milk? I thought it was fine. It did its job.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: But what beverage goes better with strudel than a cold glass of milk? I thought it was fine. It did its job.
Thats what I thought also, it would have been down right offensive to order her anything else with dessert.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he ordered for himself a glass of espresso. It wasn't in his personality (or maybe just customs of the time period) to ask her what she wanted. I still think the motivation for the milk decision was Tarantino's, for the reaction it would cause, rather than Hans trying to peg her or be polite to her.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't object to it at all. It made me gasp, and then grin, because I recognized it as something that Tarantino would do. Sure it's manipulative, but that's what the director is known for.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw it over the weekend. I thought the movie was brilliant. The first scene was so amazingly and excruciatingly TENSE. Both those actors did a brilliant job, and the guy who played Landa I thought really stole the show in this movie.
This movie seemed a little different from normal Tarantino fare. I mean, the action and situations, film style and plot were certainly Tarantinoesque, but I thought the dialogue had less grittiness and normal Tarantino delivery, and more of a quirky absurdism going on. Almost like it was Cohen Brothers dialogue in a Tarantino film. It worked, it was just unexpected.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
In some spots, it felt as if Tarantino had made an arty, independent film, until the end scenes, which were pure Tarantino.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
