Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[BisexualMMA]

Exactly. This is more what I was getting at: If he would've gotten that Oscar, then it's possible/likely that just the general caliber of work that he would've been doing in the '90s would've been higher, and if he'd been steadily working in high caliber films - and, of course, doing good work in those high caliber films - then he would've been in the mix for the types of films made by and with the type of talent that you're talking about. But like you said, the window closed on him. It really would've been cool if he could've gotten hooked up with Tarantino. I mean, Michael Madsen's non-Tarantino career is nothing to write home about, but his work with Tarantino is fucking astounding. Biehn would've fit in very nicely as any number of characters in any number of films, and it would've given him that built-in career cushion from which everyone from Madsen and Michael Bowen to Tim Roth and Samuel L. Jackson has benefited.

I wonder if it says anything that being in Planet Terror didn't really open any doors with Tarantino.

Biehn seems to be pretty director dependent. James Cameron gets pure gold out of him but otherwise the range of quality is all over the map. He can't show up and sleepwalk his way through something on pure talent / technique like Mickey Rourke or Michael Caine etc.

Obviously he would have been a perfect fit for all kinds of Kathryn Bigelow movies as well. He says turning down Near Dark before she became established was probably his biggest mistake.

 

[Shaun K]

Is hunters creed still active?

 

[Bullitt68]

I wonder if it says anything that being in Planet Terror didn't really open any doors with Tarantino.

Honestly, I only watched it once when it came out. I think that Death Proof is Tarantino's worst movie, but Planet Terror just isn't my cup of tea and so I've never felt compelled to revisit it. I honestly remember nothing and before our conversation here I'd forgotten that Biehn was even in it. I have no comments on his performance, and I know nothing about the making of it, but that was definitely his opportunity to get in good with the man.

Biehn seems to be pretty director dependent. James Cameron gets pure gold out of him but otherwise the range of quality is all over the map. He can't show up and sleepwalk his way through something on pure talent / technique like Mickey Rourke or Michael Caine etc.

True, which goes back to what I was saying: If he'd won an Oscar, then he may have gotten to work with better talent, and if he'd worked with Oliver Stone, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, etc., who knows what they could've gotten out of him?

Obviously he would have been a perfect fit for all kinds of Kathryn Bigelow movies as well. He says turning down Near Dark before she became established was probably his biggest mistake.

That movie's fucking dreadful, but yeah, he could've done a hell of a job in Strange Days in place of Ralph Fiennes and it would've been amazing for his career if he could've been in her later shit like The Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty.

Is hunters creed still active?

Someone didn't read the OP. He died in 2016. Motorcycle accident IIRC.

 

[Highway99]

I wonder if it says anything that being in Planet Terror didn't really open any doors with Tarantino.

I don't necessarily think it says anything about Michael Biehn one way or the other.

With the flop of Grindhouse, his characters took precedence and Tarantino was less willing to tailor them to fit the actors he cast, to the point that he almost shut down production on IB because he couldn't find an actor with the linguistic panache to play Landa.

The only door open for Biehn or any other actor for that matter is if they are right for the part.

 

[Shaun K]

Jesus christ, I didn't know.

I skimmed the op until I saw his name and asked a question, never tell myself to keep reading because they might be dead. No reason to get snippy bullitt, see your grumpy ass hasn't changed

 

[Shaun K]

Anyways HC was a great poster, sorry if any of you guys didn't get to catch him when he was around. Pure class

 

[BisexualMMA]

I don't necessarily think it says anything about Michael Biehn one way or the other.

With the flop of Grindhouse, his characters took precedence and Tarantino was less willing to tailor them to fit the actors he cast, to the point that he almost shut down production on IB because he couldn't find an actor with the linguistic panache to play Landa.

The only door open for Biehn or any other actor for that matter is if they are right for the part.

Well with Grindhouse they were fine with medium or lower quality performances and acting as it actually fit the project. Nobody is really casting Rose McGowan for authenticity and the same goes for some of the other roles. On the other hand, Kurt Russell absolutely killed it as Stuntman Mike, and actors like Jeff Fahey, Josh Brolin, etc. consistently bring the goods.

Michael Biehn was an odd case here because his dialogue was actually cut to intentionally be a bad edit. I think it was easily his most memorable role since the year 2000. I don't know how things went on set though. Like I said earlier, it's obvious to me that something went wrong with Puncture, which would possibly have been his 2nd biggest movie of the last twenty years.

 

[Highway99]

Well with Grindhouse they were fine with medium or lower quality performances and acting as it actually fit the project. Nobody is really casting Rose McGowan for authenticity and the same goes for some of the other roles. On the other hand, Kurt Russell absolutely killed it as Stuntman Mike, and actors like Jeff Fahey, Josh Brolin, etc. consistently bring the goods.

All that is true, but I think Death Proof fell below Tarantino's own standards in some ways and it sharpened his overall goal which was to have as strong a filmography as possible. Which I think he may have lost sight of just a bit.

Kevin Smith tells the story of meeting Quentin shortly before he left for Germany to begin production on IB quoting Tarantino as saying he needed to, "show people I can still fuck".

And part of that was staying true to what he believes his strengths are, one being his characters and not compromising by casting an actor that was good enough instead of perfect. Which paid off as we saw with Waltz.

 

[BisexualMMA]

All that is true, but I think Death Proof fell below Tarantino's own standards in some ways and it sharpened his overall goal which was to have as strong a filmography as possible. Which I think he may have lost sight of just a bit.

Kevin Smith tells the story of meeting Quentin shortly before he left for Germany to begin production on IB quoting Tarantino as saying he needed to, "show people I can still fuck".

And part of that was staying true to what he believes his strengths are, one being his characters and not compromising by casting an actor that was good enough instead of perfect. Which paid off as we saw with Waltz.

Yeah he seems to have grown. I think his movies starting with Inglourious are by far his best visual filmmaking for sure. I think his story went astray in the last part of Django and he has now done "alternate history fantasy twist" twice in the span of a few movies and I think that trick has run its course unless he wants to become Shyamalan, so I don't really know what he has left in him to write. But he always comes up with something it seems.

He keeps finding stuff to tribute or update...The Thing, old blaxploitation movies, old crappy war movies, etc. I'm sure if nothing else he can think of more stuff like that which he can redo and make much better than the original with an added twist or two. The Crippled Masters, Boss N, Mandingo, Salo, Cannibal Holocaust, some old Dario Argento or Hammer Horror movie, who knows...

I actually think he would do a great remake of Rolling Thunder.

As for the acting... Yeah just the right actor was necessary for the two Waltz roles I think. But I wouldn't say he is beyond reproach in his looking for the right actor. Eli Roth as the Bear Jew was a big disappointment. Al Pacino in Once Upon a Time was pretty pointless...the role and the performance. He's a little overcommitted to putting that Australian lady in stuff. I can probably think of a few other roles. But by and large he nails it.

It's hard to go wrong when starting out with Bruce Dern, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen as a given for your B team.

 

[Highway99]

Yeah he seems to have grown. I think his movies starting with Inglourious are by far his best visual filmmaking for sure. I think his story went astray in the last part of Django and he has now done "alternate history fantasy twist" twice in the span of a few movies and I think that trick has run its course unless he wants to become Shyamalan, so I don't really know what he has left in him to write. But he always comes up with something it seems.

As for the acting... Yeah just the right actor was necessary for the two Waltz roles I think. But I wouldn't say he is beyond reproach in his looking for the right actor. Eli Roth as the Bear Jew was a big disappointment. Al Pacino in Once Upon a Time was pretty pointless...the role and the performance. He's a little overcommitted to putting that Australian lady in stuff. I can probably think of a few other roles. But by and large he nails it.

It's hard to go wrong when starting out with Bruce Dern, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen as a given for your B team.

I get where you're coming from with Roth as the Bear Jew. Zoe Bell never really bothered me in anything she's been in.

But OUATIH is my favorite movie and I loved Pacino in it. The opening scene where he takes Rick Dalton down a peg was terrific and funny. And it wasn't pointless as it was the driving force behind Rick's spiral and the catalyst for what little story there was in the movie.

It will be interesting to see what he comes up with for his last film for sure, I have no idea what it will be other than him saying it will be "epilogue-y" so smaller in scale than OUATIH I presume.

 

[Bullitt68]

Jesus christ, I didn't know.

Three longtime, OG regulars of the SMD have died. HuntersCreed, Kansas, and edco76.

I skimmed the op until I saw his name and asked a question, never tell myself to keep reading because they might be dead. No reason to get snippy bullitt, see your grumpy ass hasn't changed

I don't know who you are, but I got a chuckle as this is the first time that I've ever been called grumpy. For the record, I wasn't being grumpy or snippy. I was just pointing out that you didn't read the OP - which struck me as odd considering if you knew enough to ask about HuntersCreed then perhaps you knew that he was the original SMD TS, and because of that you may have been inclined to read the OP for info as your first stop - and that information is contained there about him, namely, that he hasn't been active because he sadly died.

Kurt Russell absolutely killed it as Stuntman Mike

I'll never backtrack on my hate for that movie, which is by far the worst thing that Tarantino's name has ever been on, but yes 1000%. Kurt Russell has long been a movie star, he's been a consistent workhorse, but it's easy to forget what a beast of an actor he is. I just watched Vanilla Sky for only the second time ever - and the first time was close to when it came out - forgetting that he was even in it and he was phenomenal. Even before I read this post, I literally had the thought today, "Man, Kurt Russell is a damn good actor." And with regards to Tarantino, I think that he's gotten Russell's two best performances of the last 20 years out of him in Death Proof and The Hateful Eight.

I think his movies starting with Inglourious are by far his best visual filmmaking for sure.

My instinct is to deny this, or at least maintain that any gap is a very small one. His films from Inglourious Basterds through The Hateful Eight have been bigger in scope (and budget) but Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown all have phenomenal cinematography and editing, as well. It's just that warehouses, apartment buildings, and malls don't lend themselves to spectacular visuals the way that the European countryside and snowy mountainscapes do. But small though the scale of his early films were, they're still visually exceptional, too.

It will be interesting to see what he comes up with for his last film for sure, I have no idea what it will be other than him saying it will be "epilogue-y" so smaller in scale than OUATIH I presume.

Years back, he mentioned wanting to make a period, 1930s-era crime film and a horror film. I would've loved to see him do both. But with the notion of "epilogue-y" in mind, a big part of me wants him to actually follow up on his old intention and do a Kill Bill 3 with Uma. The Kill Bill saga was the bridge between his two "eras" of filmmaking and he managed to do everything in those films from crime drama and Western to martial arts movie and blaxploitation. He invested a lot in that world and it'd be a nice way to wrap things up.

But I'll be there on opening day for whatever he chooses to do.

 

[Highway99]

Years back, he mentioned wanting to make a period, 1930s-era crime film and a horror film. I would've loved to see him do both. But with the notion of "epilogue-y" in mind, a big part of me wants him to actually follow up on his old intention and do a Kill Bill 3 with Uma. The Kill Bill saga was the bridge between his two "eras" of filmmaking and he managed to do everything in those films from crime drama and Western to martial arts movie and blaxploitation. He invested a lot in that world and it'd be a nice way to wrap things up.

But I'll be there on opening day for whatever he chooses to do.

I think he might say he did a horror film with Death Proof and the 30's gangster film kinda-sorta almost came to fruition with the Star Trek idea he had based on an episode of the original series:

The Kill Bill 3 idea isn't a bad one, but it would be quite an undertaking and I'm not sure he would be willing to climb a mountain that big one final time.

 

[Bullitt68]

I think he might say he did a horror film with Death Proof and the 30's gangster film kinda-sorta almost came to fruition with the Star Trek idea he had based on an episode of the original series:

Naw, Death Proof ain't even close to horror. From Dusk Till Dawn is closer than that and even that was more sci-fi/monster movie than true horror. The Hateful Eight is the closest that he's actually come to horror - big surprise as it's a Western version of The Thing - in terms of the way that he used the camera, the way that he paced it, the way that he handled various reveals, etc. But I think that he could've made/would make a hell of a horror film if he set his mind to it. My only worry is he wouldn't be able to resist being campy/schlocky like Argento or De Palma. I don't know if he'd have the discipline to play it straight like Polanski or Carpenter.

And then he's so great at building his historical worlds that I think he'd put Mann's Public Enemies and Soderberg's No Sudden Move to shame and get closer to stuff like Eastwood's Changeling and del Toro's Nightmare Alley. Plus, I've wanted him to get back to the world of crooks ever since Jackie Brown if I'm being honest, as I've always felt and always will feel that he's at his best when he's in the underworld, not wars or the West.

The Kill Bill 3 idea isn't a bad one, but it would be quite an undertaking and I'm not sure he would be willing to climb a mountain that big one final time.

True. The flip side to that coin, though, is Tarantino wanting to go out with a bang and therefore going ham because he knows it's his last hurrah.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Naw, Death Proof ain't even close to horror. From Dusk Till Dawn is closer than that and even that was more sci-fi/monster movie than true horror. The Hateful Eight is the closest that he's actually come to horror - big surprise as it's a Western version of The Thing - in terms of the way that he used the camera, the way that he paced it, the way that he handled various reveals, etc. But I think that he could've made/would make a hell of a horror film if he set his mind to it. My only worry is he wouldn't be able to resist being campy/schlocky like Argento or De Palma. I don't know if he'd have the discipline to play it straight like Polanski or Carpenter.

I would say Death Proof is pretty close. It's basically a slasher villain a la Slumber Party Massacre or Friday the 13th with a car instead of an electric guitar with a drill on the end, going after a bunch of female victims. It just eased up on the gore and turned the tables on the villain and didn't really give him any kills after the first part of the movie.

 

[Bullitt68]

I would say Death Proof is pretty close. It's basically a slasher villain a la Slumber Party Massacre or Friday the 13th with a car instead of an electric guitar with a drill on the end, going after a bunch of female victims. It just eased up on the gore and turned the tables on the villain and didn't really give him any kills after the first part of the movie.

To me, calling Death Proof a horror movie would be like calling Béla Tarr's The Man from London an action movie. The premise of Death Proof - a serial killer preying on women - was such that Tarantino could've made a horror movie out of it...but he didn't. Instead, he essentially remade Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! Likewise, the premise of The Man from London - a guy witnesses a murder in which the dead guy's suitcase goes flying into a lake, and when the witness goes and retrieves the suitcase, he finds that it's full of money - was such that Tarr could've made an action movie out of it - just like the Coen Brothers did that same year with No Country for Old Men, which is an action movie based on the same premise - but he didn't. Instead, he made a slow noir film.

In short, Death Proof had the premise of a horror movie but Tarantino didn't tell the story like a horror story, while The Hateful Eight was told like a horror story but it didn't have the premise of a horror movie. He's never united the two.

 

[Highway99]

Naw, Death Proof ain't even close to horror. From Dusk Till Dawn is closer than that and even that was more sci-fi/monster movie than true horror. The Hateful Eight is the closest that he's actually come to horror - big surprise as it's a Western version of The Thing - in terms of the way that he used the camera, the way that he paced it, the way that he handled various reveals, etc. But I think that he could've made/would make a hell of a horror film if he set his mind to it. My only worry is he wouldn't be able to resist being campy/schlocky like Argento or De Palma. I don't know if he'd have the discipline to play it straight like Polanski or Carpenter.

And then he's so great at building his historical worlds that I think he'd put Mann's Public Enemies and Soderberg's No Sudden Move to shame and get closer to stuff like Eastwood's Changeling and del Toro's Nightmare Alley. Plus, I've wanted him to get back to the world of crooks ever since Jackie Brown if I'm being honest, as I've always felt and always will feel that he's at his best when he's in the underworld, not wars or the West.



True. The flip side to that coin, though, is Tarantino wanting to go out with a bang and therefore going ham because he knows it's his last hurrah.

I think many would disagree that Death Proof isn't horror related....at any rate, I've heard Tarantino asked about making a horror film, he'd say, "I made Death Proof." and when pressed about making a straight forward horror film his answer was, "I'd love to, but I don't think a movie like that would come out of my pen."

As for the crime stuff I agree I'd love to see more of it and who knows how he'll cap things off, but I have a feeling his career as an author will veer in that direction...I loved his OUATIH novelization and am looking forward to his film criticism books to be released in October.

You can read some reviews he wrote on various different films here, if you care to:
https://thenewbev.com/tarantinos-reviews/

 

[Bullitt68]

I think many would disagree that Death Proof isn't horror related....at any rate, I've heard Tarantino asked about making a horror film, he'd say, "I made Death Proof." and when pressed about making a straight forward horror film his answer was, "I'd love to, but I don't think a movie like that would come out of my pen."

Do you have sources for those quotes, because I've never seen/heard him say that. In fact, I've only heard him speak enthusiastically on the prospect of making a horror movie. Like here (where he discusses how the Spahn Ranch scene in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is his nomination for the closest that he's come to a horror movie, which I feel stupid for not thinking of myself because it's true): https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke58a/quentin-tarantino-is-thinking-about-making-a-horror-movie-now.

For Death Proof, I know that alongside Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, Vanishing Point, and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, Tarantino did throw in some nods to Argento, but ironically it was mostly in shit that he cut. Originally, he shot it as more of a horror movie, but he cut so much that by the end there was almost no horror left. In line with what I was saying about Death Proof and The Man from London, I think that what you're seeing are roads that Tarantino could've - but didn't - take which would've brought him into the realm of horror. He was close, but every time he came to a fork in the genre road, he'd ignore the horror road.

As for the crime stuff I agree I'd love to see more of it and who knows how he'll cap things off, but I have a feeling his career as an author will veer in that direction...I loved his OUATIH novelization and am looking forward to his film criticism books to be released in October.

You can read some reviews he wrote on various different films here, if you care to:
https://thenewbev.com/tarantinos-reviews/

I've read his reviews on the New Beverly site, and I'm looking forward to his critical writings, too, just out of curiosity more than anything else. Since I'm actually a film scholar, I'm kind of scared to read Tarantino's attempt at scholarship because I'm worried that he's going to suck at it. But I'd rather he go that route than try to chase becoming the next Elmore Leonard, as I think that he has more to offer writing about movies than writing fiction.

 

[Highway99]

Do you have sources for those quotes, because I've never seen/heard him say that. In fact, I've only heard him speak enthusiastically on the prospect of making a horror movie. Like here (where he discusses how the Spahn Ranch scene in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is his nomination for the closest that he's come to a horror movie, which I feel stupid for not thinking of myself because it's true): https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke58a/quentin-tarantino-is-thinking-about-making-a-horror-movie-now.

For Death Proof, I know that alongside Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, Vanishing Point, and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, Tarantino did throw in some nods to Argento, but ironically it was mostly in shit that he cut. Originally, he shot it as more of a horror movie, but he cut so much that by the end there was almost no horror left. In line with what I was saying about Death Proof and The Man from London, I think that what you're seeing are roads that Tarantino could've - but didn't - take which would've brought him into the realm of horror. He was close, but every time he came to a fork in the genre road, he'd ignore the horror road.



I've read his reviews on the New Beverly site, and I'm looking forward to his critical writings, too, just out of curiosity more than anything else. Since I'm actually a film scholar, I'm kind of scared to read Tarantino's attempt at scholarship because I'm worried that he's going to suck at it. But I'd rather he go that route than try to chase becoming the next Elmore Leonard, as I think that he has more to offer writing about movies than writing fiction.

It was from a Q&A on youtube somewhere, I will try to find it and will post it here if I do.

And the example you gave was to his own point, being that that is as close as he could get to making a horror film in the way people expect a horror film to be. People have asked him if he would ever make a comedy and he said that most of his movies belong in the comedy section at the movie store..

In many of the recent podcasts he has done, he talks a lot about subverting your expectations. As a genre filmmaker his goal is to deliver the goods that the genre promises but do it in a way you don't expect, Reservoir Dogs is a heist film without the heist etc.

So when people ask him those kind of questions I think he would be of the perspective that he delivered on the promises of these genres and that people are unsatisfied or just can see it because they are not delivered in the ordinary way they are used to.

And as for his writing as I mentioned I loved his novelization and look forward to whatever he does, but I love him most for his desire to share his enthusiasm for cinema.

 

[Bullitt68]

It was from a Q&A on youtube somewhere, I will try to find it and will post it here if I do.

Cool. I love how much he's gotten into podcasts, putting out so much content on so many podcasts - and even starting one of his own - but even for as much as I've watched/listened to with him on YouTube, there's a lot I haven't, so if I've missed something, I'm always eager to be pointed in cool directions.

And the example you gave was to his own point, being that that is as close as he could get to making a horror film in the way people expect a horror film to be. People have asked him if he would ever make a comedy and he said that most of his movies belong in the comedy section at the movie store..

In many of the recent podcasts he has done, he talks a lot about subverting your expectations. As a genre filmmaker his goal is to deliver the goods that the genre promises but do it in a way you don't expect, Reservoir Dogs is a heist film without the heist etc.

So when people ask him those kind of questions I think he would be of the perspective that he delivered on the promises of these genres and that people are for some reason or another are unsatisfied or just can see it because they are not delivered in the ordinary way they are used to.

I get this, but it strikes me as a cop out. Yes, he subverts expectations, but still, he's made a gangster movie (Pulp Fiction), a crime drama (Jackie Brown), a martial arts movie (Kill Bill), a war movie (Inglourious Basterds), and Westerns (Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight). These are all firmly rooted in their respective genres regardless of how much he likes to play in these particular sandboxes. In other words, it's less about what he does in the sandbox and more about the fact that he's playing in specific sandboxes. He's occasionally brought a bucket or two of horror sand into different genre sandboxes, but he's never actually played in the horror movie sandbox. If he did, I think that he could make something pretty damn cool.

And as for his writing as I mentioned I loved his novelization and look forward to whatever he does, but I love him most for his desire to share his enthusiasm for cinema.

Same. The question for me is whether he's best-suited to do this via the written or the spoken word. Someone like Scorsese, he'd make cool documentaries like A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies or My Voyage to Italy. Tarantino did something like this in the UK - he did a Channel 4 tribute thing for De Niro - and I think that his enthusiasm and his unique perspectives come through best when he's talking about movies, not writing about them. But I'll reserve my opinion until I read his book in the fall.

 

[Highway99]

Cool. I love how much he's gotten into podcasts, putting out so much content on so many podcasts - and even starting one of his own - but even for as much as I've watched/listened to with him on YouTube, there's a lot I haven't, so if I've missed something, I'm always eager to be pointed in cool directions.



I get this, but it strikes me as a cop out. Yes, he subverts expectations, but still, he's made a gangster movie (Pulp Fiction), a crime drama (Jackie Brown), a martial arts movie (Kill Bill), a war movie (Inglourious Basterds), and Westerns (Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight). These are all firmly rooted in their respective genres regardless of how much he likes to play in these particular sandboxes. In other words, it's less about what he does in the sandbox and more about the fact that he's playing in specific sandboxes. He's occasionally brought a bucket or two of horror sand into different genre sandboxes, but he's never actually played in the horror movie sandbox. If he did, I think that he could make something pretty damn cool.



Same. The question for me is whether he's best-suited to do this via the written or the spoken word. Someone like Scorsese, he'd make cool documentaries like A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies or My Voyage to Italy. Tarantino did something like this in the UK - he did a Channel 4 tribute thing for De Niro - and I think that his enthusiasm and his unique perspectives come through best when he's talking about movies, not writing about them. But I'll reserve my opinion until I read his book in the fall.

Yes, the podcasts he has done are terrific and I too am very excited for his podcast with Roger Avery.

Yes I get you point and I think many others would agree with you hence why the questions get brought up so much, and I sure as hell would be curious to see what would happen if he did venture fully into the horror genre.

I hope in addition to his future books and podcast that he does get into the documentary side of things as well. He was featured prominently in the documentary Django & Django about the work of Sergio Corbucci available on netflix. I would love if he did something like that for Howard Hawk, Jack Hill, Sergio Leone and whoever else he felt like or even genres/sub-genres etc.