Vic Sage

Quentin Tarantino, the ultimate indie-hyphenate (as an actor/writer/director/producer), is the preeminent pop poet and violence aesthete of his generation. Growing up in working class LA, dropping out of HS and going to work at a video store while taking acting classes, Tarantino lived on the fringes of the industry until he sold the screenplay for TRUE ROMANCE (later directed by Tony Scott). This gave him enough money and connections to write and direct RESERVOIR DOGS, which launched his career at the Sundance Festival. A success de' estime, DOGS set the stage for what was to come... Reservoir Dogs (1992) - A heist film with no heist, an action film propelled by dialogue, a dynamic and intensely kinetic film that takes place primarily in a single set (an empty warehouse), a sympathetic portrait of unsympathetic characters, these contradictions make for fascinating drama. Great performances, too, particularly Michael Madsen as the most feral of the canines. True Romance (1993) (screenplay) - It's the only Tony Scott film worth seeing, with Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette as the most adorable killer/drug dealer couple on the run that you ever wanted to just hug. Natural Born Killers (1994) (story) - Oliver Stone rewrote (and destroyed) QT's screenplay to such an extent he lost his screenplay credit, which he was probably happy about considering how the film turned out. Pulp Fiction (1994) - QT's career exploded with his first huge hit, a blackly comic neo-noir that won him an Oscar for his screenplay and a nomination for his direction. It also featured great performances, including the Oscar-nominated comeback of John Travolta and a star turn by Samuel L. Jackson. PULP's nonlinear, fractured structure with interweaving narratives, was fascinating storytelling. And with its pop cultural references and pastiche, and it's self-aware and highly stylized form, it became an iconic representation of post-modernist film-making, but without ever losing itself in pretension or losing sight of itself as entertainment. It is the quintessence of Quentin. Four Rooms (1995) ("The Man From Hollywood" segment) - QT wrote and directed 1 of 4 separate stories in this flop comedy. Didn't see it; don't want to. From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) (screenplay) - he chose not to direct this one, turning it over to his buddy Robert Rodriguez, so he could focus on his performance and the script. Which was too bad, since this comic horror homage to the blood and gore screamers of his youth probably could have used a more interesting directorial flourish, and it certainly would have benefited from less of him in front of the camera. As good a filmmaker as he is, QT is a very annoying actor. If only he had Hitchcock's restraint to limit himself to the briefest of cameos. Still, this is a fun movie, well worth seeing. Jackie Brown (1997) - QT's tribute to the "blaxploitation" cinema of the 70s is a rambling, overlong, unfocused and largely unsuccessful adaptation of an Elmore Leonard story. With this film, he tried to revive the career of blaxploitation queen Pam Greer, as he had earlier done for Travolta, but it didn't quite work out that way. Still, it did boost the career of veteran actor Robert Forster, earning him an academy award nomination, and Samuel L. Jackson was his usual menacing self. This is lesser Tarantino. Kill Bill: Vol. 1, 2 (2003-,2004) - QT returned to glory with this film, split into 2 volumes for distribution but originally shot as a single work. KB is an epic pop cultural melange on `roids, mixing Hong Kong martial arts films, with Japanese samurai melodramas and anime, spaghetti westerns, revenge thrillers and 70s crime actioners, into a unique concoction too overwhelming for a single sitting. Uma Thurman, whom I've never had much use for except in QT's films, is used to absolute perfection as the vengeance-seeking samurai assassin searching for her stolen child. The other performances are consistently good as well. The films both unfold obliquely, with digressions, and novelistic chapter headings to guide us from one set piece to another. While some folks prefer the more action-oriented Vol.1 to the more contemplative Vol.2, i found V2 to be the more satisfying work. Overall, I'd rate the KBs as my single favorite work of his, with its epic scale dwarfing the otherwise fabulous but smaller scale PULP FICTION. Grindhouse ("Death Proof" segment) - A double feature of 60s-70s era low-budget exploitation films he made with Robert Rodriguez, this is one of QT's least interesting works. A sort of slasher film on wheels turns into a deadly femme revenge flick halfway through, it resolves anticlimactically, with the chicks simply standing around beating up the bad guy, played by Kurt Russell in an apparent parody of his Snake Plisskin character. It's especially unsatisfying compared with Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" horror/sci-fi segment, which is a disgusting blast of fun. Although, to be fair, its been reported that Quentin co-directed PLANET TERROR, too. Inglourious Basterds (2009) - QT's alternate history of WWII is a "bunch a guys with a mission" type war movie, ala DIRTY DOZEN, etc., with a title based on a 70s low budget Italian war film, but it is uniquely Tarantino nonetheless. With 8 Oscar nominations (including an Oscar to supporting actor Christoph Waltz), it's also his highest grossing film to date. Its intertwining, episodic parallel story threads works as a structure, but fails to allow the Basterds themselves to get developed as characters we should care about, especially Brad Pitt, who is funny but 1-dimensional and cartoonish. Still, the opening sequence, with its Morricone music, shot compositions, themes and even the narrative itself, is a remake of the opening of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, and if QT had been able to maintain that sensibility, it would've been an amazing film. However, the subsequent sequences vary greatly in tone and style, so the whole thing feels more like a mishmash than a coherently articulated concept. Still, it works on many levels and, as a seminal part of his oeuvre, is not to be missed. Django Unchained (2012) - I'm looking forward to his spaghetti western. Its been in development for quite a while. My Top 5 (in order): KILL BILL 1,2 PULP FICTION RESERVOIR DOGS TRUE ROMANCE INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (though i suspect DJANGO will knock it off my list, once i've seen it)

for discussion of "Basterds": viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12346&hilit=Tarantino I can't believe I've never done a Tarantino filmography.

nobody puts Jeffy in the corner...

Having given up on video games after PONG, i don't think i'll get any of the jokes or references. so i'll pass.

RealityChuck wrote: From the list: The Ten Commandments (1956) Doctor Zhivago (1965) The Exorcist (1973) The Bells of St. Mary's (1945) Lawrence of Arabia (1962) The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) The Poseidon Adventure (1972) House of Wax (1953) some surprises from an accomplished film guy like Chuck. The Bells of St. Mary's (1945) - i fell in love with Ingrid Bergman as a nun... is that wrong? The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) - "soap opera"-ish, but still surprisingly effective in describing post-war America. The Ten Commandments (1956) - yeah, where's yer Moses NOW, see? Awful, but on an epic scale. House of Wax (1953) - you got Vincent Price, a young Charles Bronson, one of the first 3D features, in a solid DeToth thriller. Still fun, i think. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - really Chuck? this is on my short list of greatest movies ever made... Doctor Zhivago (1965) - ... but not all of David Lean's films were winners. This one is a total bore. The Poseidon Adventure (1972) - there's got to be a morning after... and you haven't lived til you see a fat Shelley Winters take the plunge. The Exorcist (1973) - scared me when i was a kid; made me laugh as an adult ..."your mother sews socks that smell!"

Ceetar wrote: Twilight made a whole boatload of money. you should see that too. yeah, if you're a 13-year-old girl, or the parent of one being forced to drive her to the theater. Ditto for "The Hunger Games" As for the others: Avatar (2009) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) - I like James Cameron, and these were pretty spectacular. Spider-Man (2002) Spider-Man 3 (2007) - I assume you saw SM2, which was the only good one of the series, so you can give these a miss. Marvel's The Avengers (2012) - but this one totally kicks ass. The Dark Knight (2008) The Dark Knight Rises (2012) - i love this trilogy. But if you saw and didn't like the 1st one, odds are you won't like these either. The Sixth Sense (1999) - terrific film. The Passion of the Christ (2004) - didn't see it, didn't want to. Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) Ghost (1990) - 2 chick flicks; only worth sitting thru if it'll make you seem sensitive and gets you laid. Independence Day (1996) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) Jurassic Park (1993) The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) Twister (1996) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) Shrek 2 (2004) - all soulless product, sound & fury signifying nothing.

top 100 us box office (adjusted for inflation) Gone With the Wind (1939) Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) The Sound of Music (1965) E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) Titanic (1997) The Ten Commandments (1956) Jaws (1975) Doctor Zhivago (1965) The Exorcist (1973) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) 101 Dalmatians (1961) Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Ben-Hur (1959) Avatar (2009) Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) The Sting (1973) The Lion King (1994) Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Jurassic Park (1993) The Graduate (1967) Fantasia (1940) The Godfather (1972) Forrest Gump (1994) Mary Poppins (1964) Grease (1978) Marvel's The Avengers (2012) Thunderball (1965) The Dark Knight (2008) The Jungle Book (1967) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Shrek 2 (2004) Ghostbusters (1984) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) Love Story (1970) Spider-Man (2002) Independence Day (1996) Home Alone (1990) Pinocchio (1940) Cleopatra (1963) Beverly Hills Cop (1984) Goldfinger (1964) Airport (1970) American Graffiti (1973) The Robe (1953) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) Around the World in 80 Days (1956) Bambi (1942) Blazing Saddles (1974) Batman (1989) The Bells of St. Mary's (1945) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Finding Nemo (2003) The Towering Inferno (1974) Spider-Man 2 (2004) My Fair Lady (1964) The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) National Lampoon's Animal House (1978) The Passion of the Christ (2004) Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) Back to the Future (1985) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) The Sixth Sense (1999) The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Superman (1978) Tootsie (1982) Smokey and the Bandit (1977) West Side Story (1961) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Lady and the Tramp (1955) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/1980) Lawrence of Arabia (1962) The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) Rocky (1976) The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) The Poseidon Adventure (1972) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) Twister (1996) Men in Black (1997) The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) Swiss Family Robinson (1960) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) M*A*S*H (1970) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) Aladdin (1992) Toy Story 3 (2010) Ghost (1990) Duel in the Sun (1946) The Hunger Games (2012) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) House of Wax (1953) Rear Window (1954) The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Spider-Man 3 (2007) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) the only ones i haven't seen: - Love Story (1970) - The Passion of the Christ (2004) - Swiss Family Robinson (1960) - Duel in the Sun (1946)

i think I've seen every movie anybody has listed so far in this thread. Wait... I didn't see 'Brokeback Mountain", nor do i intend to, nor almost every movie adaptation since 1961 that was based on any 19th century novels written by Henry James, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes (including most movies made by Merchant/Ivory). I don't know how many of these would qualify as Mega-hits, but i think some did (A ROOM WITH A VIEW, SENSE & SENSIBILITY come to mind). SHAWSHANK wasn't a megahit. It was more of a mega-flop. I love it, and it has developed a cult following and great critical reputation, but its not a 'mega-hit' in any reasonable meaning of that word. And any meaning of the term that doesn't include TITANIC and AVATAR is missing the point entirely.

best Spidey villains (in descending order): Green Goblin Kingpin Venom / Carnage Doctor Octopus - The Sinister Six (Doc Ock teams up with Vulture, Electro, Kraven, Mysterio, and Sandman) Lizard

So very true. Hudson isn't even in the first half of the movie but ends up with at least three of the best quotable lines. * Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say. * This job is definitely *not* worth eleven-five a year! * That's a big Twinkie. * Since I joined these men, I've seen shit that'll turn you white. * Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"! * I love this town!

What, you think they should have listened to that dickless EPA lawyer? (It's true... that man had no dick) Nah. The EPA is for saps, i tell ya... This one holds up really well. It's one of the best movies of its era, and one of the best comedies ever, and certainly one of the handful of best HORROR/Comedies ever ON a list that includes: ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEETS FRANKENSTEIN LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS THEATER OF BLOOD ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE ROCKY HORROR SHOW AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON GREMLINS RE-ANIMATOR ARMY OF DARKNESS LOST BOYS FRIGHT NIGHT CREEPSHOW RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD EVIL DEAD II TREMORS DEAD ALIVE SCREAM FROM DUSK TIL DAWN SHAUN OF THE DEAD BEETLEJUICE ZOMBIELAND DARK SHADOWS CABIN IN THE WOODS

just saw ABRAHAM LINCOLN, VAMPIRE HUNTER on a plane trip. So now I won't be able to watch LINCOLN without expecting him to open up a can of whuppass with a two-handed axe.

The movie is based on Goodwin's TEAM OF RIVALS, and only deals with the last 4 months of his life. I think that keeping the focus that narrow will allow for more interesting story-telling rather than trying to cover the full scope of his life. In fact, they are more likely to convey the full scope of his life by keeping the focus so narrow. DreamWorks has announced that the film "will focus on the political collision of Lincoln and the powerful men of his cabinet on the road to abolition and the end of the Civil War."[9] According to Spielberg, Doris Kearns Goodwin's entire book about Lincoln's presidency is "much too big" for a film, and said that the film will focus on the last few months of Lincoln's life, the ending of slavery and the Union victory in the Civil War. Spielberg said that "what permanently ended slavery was the very close vote in the House of Representatives over the Thirteenth Amendment � that story I'm excited to tell." Spielberg plans to show "Lincoln at work, not just Lincoln standing around posing for the history books...arguably the greatest working President in American history doing some of the greatest work for the world."

parallel universe "Earth 2" story. c'mon man, keep up.

i'm looking forward to it. Day-Lewis is probably the best actor alive right now. If anybody could pull off Lincoln as both flawed human and superhuman myth, it's him. and that Spielberg kid is pretty good too, i hear. And then there's that Kushner writer feller; he don't have no flies on him neither. and if honest Abe wrassles a railsplitter with the world up on his shoulders, so much the better.

while i think its a good idea to remake it, i have little confidence that it will improve on its mediocre source. To be clear, i've always enjoyed RED DAWN as Milius's goofy amalgam of nationalistic jingoism and a "teen/coming of age" movie. It's just so cheesy, with acting so hysterically over the top, that a remake could take the "what if" premise and make it a little less stupid and a little more serious and intense, with realistic action on a big scale. but i doubt they've achieved that. i'm thinking about a filmography on Milius, Hollywood's resident zen fascist.

Vic is lowest on Tejada, highest on Pelfrey I've made a bunch of adjustments ... relatively competent if decidedly unspectacular types (Young, Thole, Byrdak, Rauch sometimes)... In what parallel universe was Thole "relatively competent if decidedly unspectacular"? In a universe with literally NO other catchers? where, if Thole's not there behind the plate, the ball just rolls to the backstop and the ball-boy has to throw it back to the pitcher? Because in any other universe, he sucked BHMC.

ok, got it. but maybe he was running as hard as he could? It always looked to me like Kevin McReynolds only ever jogged after balls, but everybody tells me he was a heck of an OFer (despite my eyeballs), so maybe its not an easy thing to assess.

Vic is lowest on Tejada, highest on Pelfrey I'm sure i'm understating the value of the one and overstating the value of the other. But i think it does accurately represent my preference for shorter but more productive contributions over longer but unproductive ones. Pelfrey's few starts were good. Tejada was a glove-only SS with an empty BA, who missed a month to boot. No love from me for that. It's better to burn out, than to fade away -- my my hey hey of course, there is a tipping point. If a guy plays badly but plays alot, isn't he contributing something more to the team than someone who plays almost not at all, regardless of success? Somewhere along the spectrum, even Bay's contributions are superior to a player with relatively few ABs or IPs. If we say it does not, that his contribution is entirely negative and the more he plays the more he hurts the team (which is true, too), then by that logic, I actually should be rated higher than Bay, since i just sat on my couch and didn't hurt the team at all. That being said, I ranked Bay last. So its a delicate procedure, this weighing of plusses and minuses, of comparing disparate contributions. More art than science, i think.

if he missed the same number of balls but seemed to care more about it, you'd rank him higher?

you're harder on Santana than ANY of us so far. but that's ok, that's why we do this. To wash out the "outliers". I thought long and hard about Santana. I could've talked myself into ranking him anywhere from 24 to 15. Based on his final numbers, he should be toward the bottom of that range, maybe lower (as low as 10? maybe). But his numbers were skewed by some really bad starts toward the end, where he was clearly pitching through injury. And any guy who gives us the 1st no-hitter in our history gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

------- (great) 30 - DICKEY 29 - WRIGHT -------- (good) 28 - NIESE ---------(ok) 27 - MURPHY 26 - DAVIS 25 - HAIRSTON 24 - SANTANA 23 - HARVEY 22 - TEJADA --------- (not bad) 21 - GEE 20 - PARNELL 19 - YOUNG 18 - RAUCH 17 - DUDA 16 - BAXTER -------- (increasingly bad, inconsistent or absent) 15 - NIEUWENHUIS 14 - VALDESPIN 13 - CEDENO 12 - BYRDAK 11 - TURNER 10 - FRANCISCO 9 - TORRES 8 - THOLE 7 - PELFREY 6 - QUINTANILLA -------- (from bad to worse) 5 - R.RAMIREZ 4 - HEFNER 3 - EDGIN 2 - ACOSTA 1 - BAY hitters not making my list (50+ ABs): Nickeas, Shoppach, R.Johnson [coincidentally, all our backup catchers] pitchers not making my list (20+ IP): Batista, E.Ramirez, McHugh

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14559&p=366483&hilit=clint+Eastwood#p366483

alright, but only for scholarly purposes you understand.

that's as worthy an ambition as any i can think of.