Sexiest.Scene.Ever.

[CrvenBan]

From a movie, that is, and that means we wont be counting Beyonces new spot and 6-women-doing-ass-dance-bliss

oh-oh oh-oh oh oh-oh-oh \o/ hNG !!




Anyway, BEST SCENE IN A MOVIE EVER:

Selma Hayek doing her snake charming dance in From Dusk Till Down. No contest. So fucking hot.






goddamn woman! you can charm my python ANY DAY !!

[ZeUs!!]

Ummm... crv... you do realise she's over 14?

[CrvenBan]

She is ? Damn...

[za gophar]

heh.. from dusk till dawn was such a bad movie. they go get stuck in this vampire hole and there is a lot of quick nudity then all hell breaks lose and everybody dies except the one chick and george cloony because they were able to fend off the vampires with waterguns with holy water in them.. lol

[CrvenBan]

From dusk till dawn was a pure "b-movie" tribute to old horror flicks, and is to be watched like that too. Just that they had little more known faces makes it even better. Too bad After Dark is such a short song...

[Pearl Jam]

Let me explain to you why From Dusk Til Dawn is brilliant.

WARNING: This post is mostly intended for those who have already seen the movie. If you haven't, go rent it, then read this. Heh.

Half the movie was written by Robert Rodriguez. The other half was written by Quentin Tarantino. They met a limited amount of times - they had a very very basic idea of what the movie was to be (a horror-vampire movie of some kind). Other than that, they wrote each half of the script with very little correspondance with one another. The result is an extremely fucked up, jaw dropping, "what the fuck?" plot twist. That's when it flips from Tarantino's script to Rodriguez's.

For those of you who have seen Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, Jackie Brown and other various Tarantino movies, you'll realize that his number one focus is interesting dialogue between very normal, everyday characters. That's one of the joys of watching one of his movies - John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson discussing what they call McDonald's food in France shortly before blowing away someone. Quentin Tarantino and company discussing the meaning behind Madonna's song "Like a Virgin" ('It's about some chick getting fucked with a big dick for the first time. It hurts so much she feels like a tight virgin again.') shortly before they rob a diamond exchange.

Robert Rodiguez directs shoot-'em-up, destroy everything and everyone bloodbath movies. He's wrote and directed a couple of low-budget B-movies - the one that I'm sure most of you would recognize is the movie "Desperado" starring Antonio Banderes and Salma Hayek (if you want to see her naked, check out this movie). Almost the entire movie is Antonio Banderes shooting the shit out of everyone else using various guns. It's an action packed gorey bloodbath of a movie. See where I'm going with this?

The first half of From Dusk Til Dawn is Quentin Tarantino's half. Even though he knew it was a horror movie involving vampires, Tarantino writes nothing about them. He doesn't even foreshadow them once, just to be tricky.

In his half of the script, the emphasis is on the dialogue between the characters. Tons of interesting conversations (the opening scene, the preacher explaining to his kids why he has given up his profession, etc.). This establishes the background for each character in an entertaining way, as only Tarantino can.

Then half-way through the movie, all hell breaks loose. Literally.

At THE HALF-WAY POINT OF THE MOVIE, Robert Rodriguez's half of the script kicks in. All of the strippers, bartenders and bouncers turn into disgusting vampires (keep in mind this comes out of nowhere...vampires are never so much as hinted at anytime before this). Then, in true Robert Rodriguez style, a gigantic, gorey bloodbath ensues. The remaining characters left fight back. Another huge, gorey, shoot-'em-up bloodbath ensues. And then another one. And then another one. The brilliant thing about it is that it WASN'T a planned plot twist. It was the result of two screenwriters creating two completely different scripts, then combining them. Yet they never once strayed from their typical writing styles.

In an interview after the movie was released, Quentin Tarantino said something to the effect of "When I wrote my half of the script, I didn't really follow the 'rules'. It was supposed to be a vampire movie from beginning to end, but I thought it would be more fun to write a fairly normal kidnapping story for the first half, then let Robert introduce vampires for no reason at all."

Oh yeah, another brilliant thing Tarantino and Rodriguez did: before the movie was released into movie theatres, there were previews. The previews NEVER ONCE showed vampires. So anybody who went to see it in theatres (myself at age 15) had no idea it was coming. I went to that movie expecting some kind of action movie. Then half-way through the movie, for no fucking reason at all...vampires. Huge gorey bloodbath. If I could've videotaped the expressions of the faces of the people watching it (including myself), I would've. It was classic.

That about wraps it up. Sorry for such a long-winded post - just wanted to point out that there was a lot more to this movie than "STUPID VAMPIRE FIGHTS WTF".

From a guy that watches too many movies,

Pealus Jammus

[Mr. Peanuts]

k, thanks for sharing ur knowledge of this film with us

A* and two lolly pops for you young man

[Troll King]

And thank you for showing your disdain.

[Bioture]

I like that movie, but that part where the chinese kid (whom clooney called 'jap') started to use that water gun, filled with 'holy water', ruined the movie. but he did get blown up with a single bullet. way to go.

[Da1andonly]

Originally posted by za gophar
heh.. from dusk till dawn was such a bad movie. they go get stuck in this vampire hole and there is a lot of quick nudity then all hell breaks lose and everybody dies except the one chick and george cloony because they were able to fend off the vampires with waterguns with holy water in them.. lol

LOL!

That sounds even worse then Bad Taste... ROFL!@

[ZeUs!!]

Originally posted by Pearl Jam
For those of you who have seen Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, Jackie Brown and other various Tarantino movies, you'll realize that his number one focus is interesting dialogue between very normal, everyday characters. That's one of the joys of watching one of his movies - John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson discussing what they call McDonald's food in France shortly before blowing away someone. Quentin Tarantino and company discussing the meaning behind Madonna's song "Like a Virgin" ('It's about some chick getting fucked with a big dick for the first time. It hurts so much she feels like a tight virgin again.') shortly before they rob a diamond exchange.

Tarantino is a legend. If you get the 2 disc DVD of Jackie Brown you can actually see the full length tv show 'Chick's With Guns' along with loads of other crap that I haven't got round to watching because I haven't got that bored yet. However, thats not the point of this post.

You can't really argue that the main strength of Tarantino is his dialogue. Yes, its a distinguishing feature and yes it is one of his strengths, but thats not what his films are all about. In my limited capacity as a crap film critic the main grip in Tarantino's films is the shock. How often do you see a policeman buttfuck a mobster then get shot through his crotch turning the walls a lovely shade of penis? Plus the scene with Travolta shooting up in Pulp Fiction is just as disturbing as Gary Oldman popping his pills in Leon. Still on Pulp Fiction, how often do you get to see someone administered an adrenaline shot through the breast-bone into the heart and then stagger around with the syringe still stuck in her?

Imho, the main strength of Taratino films is the subtlty he usues in making extreme things seem usual and they just get on with their lives. For example when (still in Pulp Fiction, I need to find myself references from other films) Jools is pointing his HUGE fuck off handgun at the guy in the back seat of the car and they go over a speed bump and the guys brain gets splattered over the back of the car. While Tarantino's character is going monkey poo Mr Wolff doesn't give a toss, and therefore the audience just watches the film, digesting what is going on without any genuine reaction. Plus the shooting of the Melanie in Jackie Brown just happened. Nothing was made of it. This is far more significant than the impact any dialogue has made in any of his films

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Originally posted by ZeUs!!
Plus the scene with Travolta shooting up in Pulp Fiction is just as disturbing as Gary Oldman popping his pills in Leon.

I like these calm moments before the storm. It reminds me of Beethoven.

[Pearl Jam]

Originally posted by ZeUs!!
Tarantino is a legend. If you get the 2 disc DVD of Jackie Brown you can actually see the full length tv show 'Chick's With Guns' along with loads of other crap that I haven't got round to watching because I haven't got that bored yet. However, thats not the point of this post.

You can't really argue that the main strength of Tarantino is his dialogue. Yes, its a distinguishing feature and yes it is one of his strengths, but thats not what his films are all about. In my limited capacity as a crap film critic the main grip in Tarantino's films is the shock. How often do you see a policeman buttfuck a mobster then get shot through his crotch turning the walls a lovely shade of penis? Plus the scene with Travolta shooting up in Pulp Fiction is just as disturbing as Gary Oldman popping his pills in Leon. Still on Pulp Fiction, how often do you get to see someone administered an adrenaline shot through the breast-bone into the heart and then stagger around with the syringe still stuck in her?

Imho, the main strength of Taratino films is the subtlty he usues in making extreme things seem usual and they just get on with their lives. For example when (still in Pulp Fiction, I need to find myself references from other films) Jools is pointing his HUGE fuck off handgun at the guy in the back seat of the car and they go over a speed bump and the guys brain gets splattered over the back of the car. While Tarantino's character is going monkey poo Mr Wolff doesn't give a toss, and therefore the audience just watches the film, digesting what is going on without any genuine reaction. Plus the shooting of the Melanie in Jackie Brown just happened. Nothing was made of it. This is far more significant than the impact any dialogue has made in any of his films

I agree with this to a point. Natrual curiosity is what causes us to want to watch a string of shocking moments. Jackass: The Movie, for example. Tons of extreme, disgusting things - of course you'll keep watching (unless you have a weak stomach). But is it actually any good? Thought provoking? No. It's just a bunch of guys videotaping each other throwing up.

In Pulp Fiction's case, the dialogue is what distinguishes it from a movie like Jackass. The diologue is what pulls it all together. It's what makes it an altogether good movie.

It's the interesting dialogue is what sets it apart from other movies involving subtle, shocking moments (because there are a shitload others out there that utilize this same effect, come on now).

[Material Girl]

Idanno,.. my friend from Germany likes Quentin Tarantino..... I never got into it that much.
But Salma Hayek...... I liked her dancing scene in that Jay and Silent Bob movie... even with glasses she looks red hot! :eek:

[Jack]

Originally posted by Pearl Jam
...shitload...