My Best Friend's Birthday

I mean no disrespect to any of the other commentators of this movie, but I never would have expected to hear someone say this is, would have, or could have been QT's best. In fact, I think Tarantino himself would have a good laugh at that notion. He might even take offense to it.

If you've ever seen the time Tarantino was on Charlie Rose, he talks a bit about this movie (without ever mentioning the title) and I can see and completely agree with everything he said about it. It's really an awful movie - largely due to the horrendous acting... but what are you gonna do; it's essentially a student film for a man who was never a film student.

In case you haven't seen the interview I mentioned, here's basically what he said: He admitted that the movie was really bad, but if you watched it, you could tell that he did it (very true). He also said this movie, while a complete failure, was his film school. He learned about film-making during the process of making this film; it really amounted to an experiment. In another interview he mentioned that, when he was in negotiations for Reservoir Dogs, when asked by a studio exec if they could see his previous work, he said no.

There are a few moments that are very much Tarantino, and a couple of them show up in evolved forms in his later movies. This is the reason referred to in the summary line of this review. QT is, without a shadow of a doubt, my all-time favorite filmmaker, so it's an interesting look back in time to see what a completely inexperienced, unprepared Tarantino with no budget whatsoever could do.

I realize I haven't quite specified what was so bad about this movie, but it's pretty much everything. It's not well thought out, it's disjointed, the sound and picture are horrible (don't worry, I'm not really counting against it for that - it's to be expected for such a low budget film), the dialogue is not up to par, and I reiterate that the acting is truly awful (with the exception of QT himself).

However, it is undeniably a Tarantino movie, and for that reason and that reason alone I can see fit to give it 5/10 stars. I can guarantee, though, that most of these people rating it at 10 stars would not give this movie the time of day if it were from a no-name director. I'm no different, but I admit it openly, and I'm not afraid to critique the man despite my near-idolization of him. I think it was actually a nice twist of fate that this movie was destroyed, making Reservoir dogs his first official film credit instead.

Based upon seeing what little footage remains of this movie, I don't think that the full-length version would have been a great movie. What's seen here is a jumble of different scenes that each advance the story very little. Tarantino clearly didn't yet have a full grasp of more proper ways to plot and execute a story. Still, despite this (and the very primative production values and acting), the footage is a fascinating cinematic document of sorts. The movie is full of ideas (and dialogue) that Tarantino later polished up and reused in other movies (primarily TRUE ROMANCE.) So while this is mostly amateur hour as a *movie*, it is very entertaining as a cinematic notebook.

Clarence Pool, a radio DJ, is planning a birthday party for his best friend, Mickey Burnett. However, his great intentions and best efforts don't always work out as planned.

Written and directed by and starring Quentin Tarantino, this should have been his first film. However, the second and final reel of the film was lost in a fire and the complete version was hardly ever viewed. What remains is and incomplete movie of about 36 minutes (technically making it a short).

Hence it not been counted among Tarantino's movies (plus, wouldn't you rather say that Reservoir Dogs was your debut film?).

What remains isn't bad, though isn't great either. The first thing that strikes you is that it is a comedy. Tarantino's dramas always have an element of comedy about them, due to the clever, stylised dialogue but this is a pure comedy, not an action-drama with comedic elements. Moreover, it works, mostly. Tarantino takes the clever dialogue and moves it from entertaining filler to centre stage. Add in some physical gags and you realise that Tarantino may have a gift for comedy (though I'm glad he ended choosing a different cinematic path).

There's also a stoner-slacker aspect to the whole thing which reminds me of Clerks. Tarantino could have been Kevin Smith before Kevin Smith was Kevin Smith!

(This said, I have no idea what path the second half of the movie took, so it could have ended more like the Tarantino we know and love).

In addition to the clever dialogue, there's another Tarantino trademark: long discussions about movies or music. Always entertaining, and edifying.

As mentioned, not great though. The plot is a bit disjointed. Tarantino was clearly still learning his art as a director and editor: the scenes are quite choppy. The whole movie has an overly rough-around-the-edges feel to it.

Also, difficult to rate a movie highly when you're only able to see half of it!

You can, however, see glimpses of what was to come. As mentioned, the sharp dialogue is there. In addition, some of the plot details remind me of True Romance.

Just wish that the whole movie had survived. But then Tarantino would have already made 10 movies and, due to his self-imposed quota, would now be in retirement, so maybe it was for the best!

Needless to say, due to the movie being in this state it is in, this is really only for Tarantino fans, to see where it all began and complete the collection.

Tarantino is the man! The movie is watchable (surprising for how old it is), obviously its lacking the polish (both script and video) of his later movies but who cares. This movie probably cost him the price of a six pack and it shows. Whats great about it, is that it shows this generations greatest director in his youth giving this whole "movie" thing a shot. In that respect this movie really succeeds. It's one of those things that you watch and then say "Hey I could do that... why arn't I doing that?". Really cool to know that this guy started with this... offbeat... film and then went on to direct the Pulpiest of Fiction (hands down, best film ever). The best part of this movie is not the script, directing or acting. The BEST part of this movie is that it has inspired me to get going on a film of my own.

Thanks QT No time like the present.

(32%) A curiosity piece that's for Tarantino fans only as about half of it is 100% missing forever, and what's left is largely a mixed bag. Quentin himself is about the best thing here and gives a good dose of effort and comic timing to his performance. The writing is somewhat decent at times; although like a lot of things here it's clearly the product of the inexperienced, and many will claim that it's nothing more than typical Tarantino movie name dropping, which really is only partly true. For a very low budget first attempt this isn't too bad, and it does at least show some future potential of what was yet to come.