What in the hell
The Vines were just on Letterman. It was a sureal experience at least.

In other news, I have a justification:
Recently, I said that “Jackie Brown” is the best Tarantino movie. A friend of mine called me on it, and thus I must clarify– especially in light of tomarrows DVD release (btw: Best Buy has a sale– buy both Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown and get From Dusk till Dawn free.. stellar).
“Jackie Brown” is in fact the best Tarantino movie, almost solely for the following reason: it’s style with substance. Pulp Fiction is good, don’t get me wrong. But that fact of the matter, is that it’s all style. What do you get when you strip away the concept? You get an overly long scene involving Quentin, himself, acting to no one. You get funny jokes, and awesome visuals. You get violence, and pop-culture– but…. it just leaves you dry. Yes, the has more. That last scene in the coffee shop does break the mold and deliver a little bit more to us watching, but an end does not a movie make. Pulp Fiction is damn good– but it’s not better than Jackie Brown. In Brown, we aren’t just thrown into a world of senseless style, but we are given time get a feel for the characters. I know a lot of people who claim that it’s too long. That an easy forty minutes could be trimmed from the film– but they’re wrong. Those forty minutes are the most important part of the whole movie. The intro basically sets up exactly what Jackie Brown is all about. It’s the tracking shot of her on the moving sidewalk, while the credits roll. It’s long. It’s deliberate– and it tells us more than any shot in all of “Pulp Fiction”– in “Jackie Brown ” we’re able to look at their faces.
Okay, then there’s the argument that the whole point of “Pulp Fiction” was that the characters are flat– and that having the style aspect be the center of the film is exactly what a movie called pulp fiction should be. Pulp, in fact, is trashy, lo-fi, stories, and thus the film should obviously be shot this way. This argument is valid, and leads right into my next point–
It is unfair to try and critique narrative dramas in the same category as films that are more a marvel of technical breakthrough. Movies like Slacker, Waking Life, Full Frontal, Pulp Fiction, etc. are more exercises in filmmaking than movies that can just be summed up into a genre heading. So in this sense, it’s rediculous to even compare “Jackie Brown” and “Pulp Fiction” mearly on the basis of development and character. So if they aren’t directly comparable– one can obviously compare them in relation to the director, Tarantino. After all, my original point was that “Jackie Brown” was Tarantino’s best film. Look at the two structurally. Brown just explores so many more areas than Pulp does, and signals an obvious improvement in direction.

Of course, none of this matters because he’s only made three films in the past ten years, and Kill Bill isn’t going to come out until October 2003. So automatically, Mr. Tarantino is up for the slacker award.

As Bill O’Reily would say: Tell me why I’m wrong!