Fletch's Favored Five: Quentin Tarantino Scenes

Quentin Tarantino has a gift for creating memorable scenes. The only problem is that this creates a paradox of sorts. He creates so many terrific scenes that, when called to narrow them down to a list of five, there's too much to choose from, leading me to think like The Incredibles' Dash: "If they're all special, then none of them are special."

But we know that's not the case. How can they be narrowed down, though? Pulp Fiction alone has about 30 scenes that might make this list; conversely, I love Jackie Brown and think it's solid from front-to-back, yet can't think of too many scenes in it that stand apart from their brethren. And though I've seen all of his films (and True Romance will be counted for the purpose of this list), there are some I have much more experience with than others, and I don't want to shut them out based solely on that.

5. Stuntman Mike's first act of destruction (Death Proof)


It's no wonder I couldn't find any pictures of this scene, since a) it happens quickly and b) it's pretty gruesome. But Death Proof is a slow burn, and this moment occurs at just about the midway point, and boy is it an OMG! moment if ever there was one, shocking the movie with a million gigawatts of electricity.

4. The Basement scene (Inglourious Basterds)


Of all of Tarantino's scenes, this most famous one from his more recent work seems to be the one that's the true test of whether or not someone really digs what Quentin is serving. A long, funny, tense setup...you know it's gonna end badly (much like the initial farmhouse scene), but you have no idea in hell when that's gonna happen.

3. "English, motherf#%^er, do you speak it?!?!" (Pulp Fiction)


I'll tell you right now, there are two Pulp Fiction scenes on here. I'm leaving off some of his most beloved films altogether. Of course, as I stated above, though, that's not the problem; the problem is all of the scenes in Pulp that could make the list that aren't going to. This, however, is probably amongst the most beloved and oft-quoted that their is...but not enough to top my list.

2. "You're a cantaloupe!" (True Romance)


Two acting heavyweights, going toe-to-toe with life on the line. Notice that theme popping up again? We all knew how this scene was going to end, but Tarantino took us to places surprising and hilarious first.

1. Jack Rabbit Slims (Pulp Fiction)


You might be saying "What?!?!" It's true, compared to the adrenaline scene or perhaps the finale in the diner or Bruce and Marsellus' trip to the L.A. underground, this is a subdued scene that really does little to move the plot forward. But this was the moment in the film that took it to another level in terms of pop culture, imbibing it with a timelessness and kitsch factor that set it apart from every other mobster movie out there. If I had to pinpoint the moment that I fell head over heels in love with Pulp, this was it.

And then...

Bang for Your Butt

Tangent One
I'm a bit of amateur stat geek. I pay close attention to the weekend box office results, as evidenced by the summer box office games I've devised and such. I play (and win!) fantasy football every year, much to the disdain of a certain Mrs. Fletch, and I dive into analyzing the prior year's stats every July/August in preparation for the upcoming draft(s). I'm a baseball fan and am familiar, if not an expert, with terms like OPS and VORP. I spend all day in Excel and/or Access.

You get the picture.

Tangent Two
If you've read reviews here for some time, you've probably seen me rant a time or twelve about the length of some films these days. Sam Raimi's insufferable 139-minute Spider-Man 3. Gore Verbinski's 169-minute (!!!) third Pirates of the Carribean movie. Even great films like Paul Thomas Anderson's 158-minute masterpiece There Will Be Blood could stand to have a little fat lopped off the top. In my world, movies should not be shorter than 85 minutes and should not be longer than 120 unless there's a really good reason; if you can't tell your story in two hours (give or take a few minutes), then I just might have a problem with you, and my butt most certainly does.

Tangential Combination
So anyway, sometime over the last few days, someone asked me if I was going to see Public Enemies. "I dunno, probably" was probably my answer; the trailer looks ok and all, but I just had this bad feeling about the Johnny Depp-starring, Michael Mann-directed crime saga.

And then I realized what the problem was. Mann doesn't make bad movies - after all, his 11 features have an average IMDb rating of 7.3, just below Steven Spielberg's 7.4. But damned if his movies aren't long as sh*t, and they seem to have been getting longer as his career's gone on. Have a look:

Movie	Rating	Length
The Jericho Mile	7.5	97
Thief	7.2	122
The Keep	5.7	96
Manhunter	7.2	119
The Last of the Mohicans	7.7	112
Heat	8.2	171
The Insider	8.0	157
Collateral	7.8	120
Ali	6.5	157
Miami Vice	6.0	134
Public Enemies	8.7	140

It should be noted that the score for Public Enemies is artificially high (as most new releases on IMDb are) and will likely be below 8.0 by Monday.

Short story long, what I longed for was a metric that told me whether a movie was worth the toll it took on my butt. Not to say that any movie literally bothers my butt to sit through, but you know what I mean - even during a movie like the aforementioned There Will Be Blood, you'll probably find yourself stealing more than a few glances at your watch, wondering just how close to the end this thing is. Or maybe you're sick of 3-hour movies that all but guarantee a trip to the restroom and some missed plot points.

A large factor in deciding what movies I want to see is who is directing, so I figured this metric would work better if we could look at a director's body of work and assign a figure, in the end deciding whether or not they are a Friend of Your Butt (FYB) or an Enemy of Your Butt (EYB). (Before we proceed, please head over to the gutter, lean over, and pick up your mind from it. Thanks. Jerk.) Then, when director X has a new film that comes out, we can look at his/her Butt Score to help determine whether or not it's worth it to see their film in the theater or to maybe wait for a time when a pause button and/or restroom is but a few paces away. But how to quantify that accurately...

In the end, the best solution is sometimes the simplest. To determine a single film's Butt Score, all you do is take the length (in minutes) and divide it by the IMDb rating. I realize IMDb rating's might not be the best judge of a film's value, but a) it's close enough and b) so long as the same scale is used across the board, the results should keep their integrity (integrity, ha ha). Again, let's use Mann as an example:

Movie	Rating	Length	Butt Score
The Jericho Mile	7.5	97	12.93
Thief	7.2	122	16.94
The Keep	5.7	96	16.84
Manhunter	7.2	119	16.53
The Last of the Mohicans	7.7	112	14.55
Heat	8.2	171	20.85
The Insider	8.0	157	19.63
Collateral	7.8	120	15.38
Ali	6.5	157	24.15
Miami Vice	6.0	134	22.33
Public Enemies	8.7	140	16.09

The lower the Butt Score, the better. A great example of this can be seen with The Jericho Mile and The Keep. They clock in at 97 and 96 minutes, respectively (identical), but thanks to a much better rating, Jericho has an impressive 12.93 Butt Score. Of the 69 films I've looked at thus far, the average is 17.37, and only nine were lower than 12.93. Here in the infancy of this metric, the determination of a director's FYB/EYB rating will depend on where their body of work falls in relation to that average score; to do this, I'm taking tossing out their highest and lowest Butt Scores and averaging the rest. Michael Mann, as is turns out, isn't as bad as I might have thought, thanks to the high quality of his work, but the survey says that he is still an Enemy of Your Butt, with a Combined Butt Score of 17.88.

So that's the crux of it. I figure I'll use this brilliant/awful new metric as the springboard for a new feature where I occasionally inform you on the Enemy/Friend status of a topical director. In the meantime, here are a few other bodies of work:

Quentin Tarantino

Movie	Rating	Length	Butt Score
Reservoir Dogs	8.4	99	11.79
Death Proof	7.3	90	12.33
Kill Bill, Vol. 1	8.2	111	13.54
Kill Bill, Vol. 2	8.0	136	17.00
Pulp Fiction	8.9	154	17.30
Inglorious Basterds	8.3	148	17.83
Jackie Brown	7.6	154	20.26

Combined Butt Score: 15.66
Quentin Tarantino is a Friend of Your Butt

Michael Bay

Movie	Rating	Length	Butt Score
Bad Boys	6.5	118	18.15
The Rock	7.2	136	18.89
Transformers	7.4	144	19.46
The Island	6.9	136	19.71
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	6.6	150	22.73
Bad Boys II	6.2	147	23.71
Armageddon	6.0	150	25.00
Pearl Harbor	5.4	183	33.89

Combined Butt Score: 21.58
Michael Bay is a Enemy of Your Butt (which is the least surprising news I've heard all day; Pearl Harbor had the highest Butt Score of any film I looked at...by far. 2nd worst was Armageddon...)

Wes Anderson

Movie	Rating	Length	Butt Score
Rushmore	7.8	93	11.92
The Darjeeling Limited	7.3	91	12.47
Bottle Rocket	7.2	91	12.64
The Royal Tenenbaums	7.6	110	14.47
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou	7.2	119	16.53

Combined Butt Score: 13.19
Wes Anderson is a Friend of Your Butt (of the six directors I looked at, Anderson had the best CBS. Rushmore placed 4th overall, with Rob Reiner's This is Spinal Tap the clubhouse leader with a scant 10.25 Butt Score. Kudos, Rob Reiner...and irony.)


So...I'm insane, aren't I? Be honest.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Grindhouse

If you're thinking...about seeing...Grindhouse...DON'T!

That's not my actually recommendation, that's just a reference to the film that those who have seen it ought to appreciate. In fact, I highly recommend the film (to a certain group of people). Let me explain...

Actually, first I have some business to attend to. A few months ago, I harped on both Grindhouse and Black Snake Moan for their seeming lack of purpose. Well, I have yet to see Moan (and still don't have much of a desire to), but I owe an apology to Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, for I could not have been much more wrong about Planet Terror or Death Proof.

The directors have not set out to re-create the blaxploitation genre necessarily, nor are they attempting to exploit anything in this film. This is a trip back in time to the 70s, a trip to their teenage years and the films they grew up on. And regardless of whether or not you grew up watching or loving those movies, Grindhouse is made for the 13-year old boy inside everyone.

And there is the crux, the deciding factor as to whether or not Tarantino and Rodriguez have made a film (or films, rather) for you.

In case you haven't heard, here's a recap: right off the bat, you are introduced to the fact that these aren't just movies that you've come to see, but a cinematic experience, complete with "Coming Attractions" of films that will never see the light of day* and rating messages, all done with a 70s kitsch and tongue planted firmly in cheek. (*The first preview, for a revenge pic titled Machete, starring Rodriguez vet Danny Trejo, looks like it will be made after all, and should be either in theaters or straight-to-DVD sometime in 2008. I can't wait.)

After the Machete preview is Rodriguez's Planet Terror, an adrenaline-soaked, testosterone-filled zombie flick, with enough severed limbs and spurting blood to rival 300 (perhaps). The diminutive Freddy Rodriguez stars as "El Wray," a mysterious sort who has some sort of military training and a chip on his shoulder. But the plot is really besides the point. Rodriguez (Robert, that is) wants to throttle you over the head, and he achieves that in often-hilarious ways.

The "intermission" brings three more previews: the Rob Zombie-directed Werewolf Women of the S.S. (which needs almost no explanation, though I must mention that it features a pretty-funny Nic Cage cameo. Kudos to you, Ghost Rider.), the Eli Roth-directed Thanksgiving (an alternate take on the holiday-themed slashed pic), and the Edgar Wright-directed Don't (a haunted house gone demented). All have their moments, and all are raunchier (and funnier) than just about any preview you've ever seen.

And now time for something completely different...

Tarantino's Death Proof closes out the experience, all style and mood, with a frame of a plot thrown around it. But the plot is immaterial as well. Taking a 180 from Planet Terror, Death Proof hits you with dialogue, some groovy music, some more dialogue, and then some shocking violence. Rinse, lather, repeat. And though that might not sound like much, this is Tarantino's strength (unlike his acting, which pops up its dirty little head in both features, though less egregiously in Death Proof) - he sets a mood, gets you comfortable, gets you a bit anxious for what's next, then blows you away with what follows (a la the razor scene in Reservoir Dogs or the unfortunate shooting of Marvin in Pulp Fiction).

So, if you're looking for a thrilling, visceral, over-the-top cinematic experience, complete with gratuitous sexual themes and violence, Grindhouse is most definitely for you. However, judging by the box office receipts, I'm guessing it's not.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...

Fill-in-the-blank-sploitation?

For the life of me, I can't figure out who is being exploited these days. Long gone are the days of blaxploitation or sexploitation films, and though there may be elements of those in the new films Black Snake Moan and Grindhouse, those labels just can't possibly apply to this new breed.

Robert Rodriguez, co-director (in a manner of speaking) of Grindhouse has been heading down these tracks for some time now. From Dusk Till Dawn and Sin City shared some elements of those films of old, and he and Quentin Tarantino have decided to go all the way with Grindhouse. The plot summary listed on IMDb.com is as follows:

"An homage to exploitation B-movie thrillers that combines two feature-length segments into one double-bill designed to replicate the grind house theatergoing experience of the 70s and 80s. In "Death Proof," a psycho named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) stalks and kills beautiful women with his car. In "Planet Terror," a small-town sheriffs' department has to deal with an outbreak of murderous, infected people called "sickos." A gun-legged woman named Cherry (Rose McGowan) and her martial arts-wielding partner (Freddy Rodriguez) take on the zombie army. The two films will be fused together by fake movie trailers."

Meanwhile, Craig Brewer, director of the Memphis-based pimp saga Hustle & Flow, has Black Snake Moan coming out soon. Moan is described as such:

"A God-fearing bluesman (Samuel L. Jackson) takes to a wild young woman (Christina Ricci) who, as a victim of childhood sexual abuse, looks everywhere for love, never quite finding it."

I can't say that I'm on board with either. In fact, they sound like trainwrecks whose only redeeming qualities may be how laughably bad they are. With Grindhouse, I can at least understand (kind of) what Tarantino and Rodriguez are shooting for (the post-modern exploitation film, complete with self-aware "badness"). Moan, however, appears to take itself quite seriously, which doesn't bode well for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that, despite Terrence Howard's strong performance, I found Hustle & Flow to be wildly overhyped, cliched, predictable, you name it. The in-your-face, over-the-top Memphis accent employed by Howard didn't help matters. Know what I'm saying, main?)

The larger issue at hand here is what I find to be wasted talent. Tarantino, Rodriguez and Brewer are all very talented filmmakers - why are they making B-movies, much less on purpose? Remember, the exploitation films of the past were typically made out of necessity and/or carved out for an audience that was underserved. Somehow, I get the feeling that that's not the case here. It is possible, after all, to make pulp films that have a point and resonate with their audiences - Tarantino and Rodriguez have done this many times, as writer, director, or both. Why not (even attempt to) do that again?

And then...