What is this Tarantino fetish? He's a geek who got lucky. He has'nt produced a movie in the last ten years with anything approaching the emotional resonance of a Shane Meadows or the cool factor of a Robert Rodriguez. All image and no substance does not make a good film and Speed Racer fails big time. Each to their own but the views i have recieved about my choices are perplexing ATM. BOTH my sons think Speed Racer is boring and all style over substance.

Shane Meadows, as much as I like him, doesn't come close to the versatility or originality of either Tarantino or the Wachowski's (and he'll obviously never be of much interest to people outside of England), and Rodriguez makes recycled trash without the retro cool (which just makes it trash, as evidenced with the Grindhouse project). Speed Racer was not meant to be a serious film, it's an adaptation of a Japanese kids cartoon, almost a literal adaptation (as far as the story goes at least) which is precisely what makes it work, it's tongue in cheek, stupid fun, and everyone that failed to see it has forgotten how to be a kid (although I don't think kids can really appreciate the style).

Spy Kids 3 easily shows how to make a kids film that can appeal to both kids and adults. Rodriguez has made plenty of films I don't like but he has more talent than the chin. Even industry insiders are now commenting on Tarantino. The guy can write dialogue but if we are talking versatility where is the serious film? Where is the film without the cutesy dialogue and seriousness? He hasnt got it in him.

I know EXACTLY what Speed Racer was intended to be and I admire many things about it but it's quite boring and horribly sentimental which is anethema to us here in Europe. Admire it? Yes. like it? No, sorry.

Each to their own as I said and I respect your film tastes yet you dismiss Horror but embrace Speed Racer and Deathproof?

I have seen many Horror films that have cost 100/th of the cost of Speed Racer that have more imagination and scope.

You like the film? Great and I can appreciate that but from a guy who loves the minimalist approach of Asian cinema and can discuss Kieslowski with me on an intelligent level has left me speechless with a 10/10 for speed racer.

As I said, I rated it like that because it achieved what it set out to do perfectly. Some people couldn't get into it and that's fine...but you can't really compare Spy kids with Speed racer, they're in separate universes as far as style goes, mainly because the former has none. But ok, I'll be the first to admit that I'm shallow and appreciate style and originality more than your regular cinema nut. That's why I liked 300 (that or the oily muscles, I get confused ;)).

Oh and I don't dismiss horror, I just can't get into trash, which seems to be horror's main domain.

http://weblogs.amny.com/entertainmen...blog/doubt.jpg
Amazing film. This is not the best this year but it is probably in my top 5. I was certainly carried by the breathtaking performances by Streep, Hoffman, Davis, and Adams. The script was solid and I enjoyed Shanley's direction, as it would have probably been lacking if it was directed by anyone else.

While I completely agree that Tarantino is incredibly overhyped, I'd say that Jackie Brown could be considered a serious film, and although it does delve a wee bit into his usual style, it shows that he can do serious films.

I'm not one for film debate really. I can talk and even argue music to my hearts content but while I enjoy film I simply don't care enough to debate it so I'm not gonna say too much. However I've heard the opinions on both side on the fence for QT and he is simply like the Marmite of cinema. He's often worshipped yet some people can't stand his ****ing guts. Theres usually more people on one side of the fence to such a degree than there are in the middle who DONT have an opinion on Tarantino.

I've always enjoyed film and TV with fantastic dialogue and the script for me tends to be more important than anything else so I love QT but obviously the dialogue in his films isnt enough for everyone and therefore these people can start to pick at his weaknesses. Its simple really. At least thats what I've always thought.

I did my media coursework back in college on QT, by the way so I'm a bit of a fan.

And you say Akira is badly animated. :laughing:

Too bad that's his worst film to date.

I think Tarantino is great, I think that whenever someone is as polarizing a figure as he is, he's obviously doing something right.

If you're looking for something that's more in depth, look elsewhere, but that's a lame reason to call him a bad director. This is a guy who just takes influences from many genres (westerns, exploitation, samurai) and blends it into his own trademark style, his dialogue, his characters, his storytelling style and his overall directing style is great, his films have more to do with loose themes than with any one unifying narative, there's nothing wrong with that. So what if he dosen't have it in him to do a completely serious movie? Is there something wrong with doing your own thing all of the sudden? His movies are pure entertainment, just on a more personal and intelligent level than most. I don't think Tarantino would do a good serious film, because he already tried with Jackie Brown and failed, but then again, Scorsese can't do a good upbeat musical comedy.

Oh, and Spy Kids 2 and 3 sucked big time.

I've already explained I was referring to the character design. :rolleyes: