let me just get things straight-what's the general consensus regarding Tarantino on this board

I’ve heard many do not like him here. Just out of curiosity, is it true or not?

I can only speak for myself and have in a couple threads
I think he is profoundly untalented

I agree, but he’s worshipped like a God in here.

I think the general consensus is that there is NOT ENOUGH discussion of Quentin Tarantino and his films on this board.

I think the general consensus is that he is the worst filmmaker in human history.

Personally, I think he’s quite entertaining to watch, and he’s good at what he does.

theauteurs.com is a virtual lovefest to him. It’s sickening. :O

I think he’s profoundly talented, as the best parts of RESERVOIR DOGS show, but he has squandered his talent in no-brains nonsense like PULP FICTION, the KILL BILLs and the current INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

Love his movies to death, couldn’t care less what the general consensus is.

No matter what the general consensus is, there’s still no love for Tarantino’s BEST film, Jackie Brown – probably never will be. Nevertheless, we’ve all been through these torturous discussions many many times before.

I suggest that if Queens2010 really wants to know the consensus on this site that he merely type the word “Tarantino” into the SEARCH box above and see if he can find a consensus from the dozen or more threads that have already been devoted to QT’s “oeuvre.”

I, for one, have said my piece about him unless there’s a new and UNIQUE thread about some specific area.

Why re-invent the wheel?

Jesus another QT thread? He has more threads on here than Michael Bay..

dp

“as the best parts of RESERVOIR DOGS show”

a copy-cat / frame-by-frame remake is where Tarantino shows his best parts? dude…seriously..don’t make me sick.

Actually, all of the threads and the responses to this thread indicate only one consensus: there is no consensus.

The end.

—DiB

I once new someone who taught a college film course known for its lively discussions, but after screening Reservoir Dogs each semester, all she would say regarding the film is “I don’t think we need to say anything about this film” and they would move on in the syllubus.

. . . that sort of sums up how I feel about Tarantino.

THERE IS NO GENERAL CONSENSUS ABOUT TARANTINO, on theauteurs…or anywhere.

Oh, upon review, I guess I just second POLARISDIB.

I don’t know if there is a consensus, but I can only speak for myself. I think its dumb and very disingenuous to call him untalented- I completely agree with Roscoe’s statement above. The man is obviously profoundly talented, however much I might resent that fact; visually one of the most exciting directors alive, as many particular sequences in his films show. I basically can’t stand him because I think he is just a utter waste of talent, squandering it on ego-driven, childish material for permanently adolescent fanboys like KIll Bill, Grindhouse, and most of Inglorious Basterds (and yes, most of the way-overrated Pulp Fiction as well). I haven’t seen it in a log time, but Reservoir Dogs is the most mature cinematic thing the guy ever did, which isn’t saying too much.

The ultimate example of what I am talking about is the 1st long sequence in IG, a beautifully filmed bit of Hitchcockian suspense, with an amazingly charismatic villain, that is almost perfect in every way, and you can easily imagine it being a great opening for a profoundly different film. Instead, it cuts away to Brad Pitt and his goonish Basterds with their inane dialogue and plotting , and all the other ridiculous shit that follows. I’m not expecting Ingmar Bergman-level profundity from him or anything, but I would like to see the asshole grow up a little bit and do something non-ironic, with some actual point and meaning to its existence. Uugghh… What a waste of talent! One of God’s silly jokes or something, coupling such talent with such childish ego in the same body…

“I think he’s profoundly talented, as the best parts of RESERVOIR DOGS show.”

It’s easy to make people believe you’re “profoundly talented” as long as they haven’t seen the original.

It’s funny how people say QT’s films are visually interesting, when Pulp Fiction is about as visually bland a film as there is.

“I would like to see the asshole grow up a little bit and do something non-ironic, with some actual point and meaning to its existence” – Rolston

Hang in there – I believe that will happen at some point. Right now he’s having fun.

I guess my admonitions about stopping this umpteenth thread on QT are going unheard and unheeded. Most of these same arguments have been rehearsed and rehashed on this site for months.

That said, a few comments above may prove instructive about a possible consensus about one aspect of QT’s work: that whether you like his films or not, he is better at constructing individual SCENES than he is at making whole, unified films. I haven’t done a statistical analysis of this “finding” (and I don’t care to do so), but it seems that much of the praise for Tarantino (even if it’s sometimes faint praise) is for specific sequences and even those who don’t generally like his movies (like me) can find an occasional word of praise for selected set pieces (like the opening of Inglorious Basterds mentioned by RTRolston above. I know, I know, it’s derivative of Sergio Leone and Hitchcock, et al.).

I jokingly attribute QT’s failure to put together a coherent and organic film to his early days when he worked in a video store and watched hundreds of films. Unfortunately, he was probably interrupted frequently by customers, the boss, inventory, etc., and consequently never saw a film straight through from beginning to end. :-)

Queens, I think you pretty much gather an answer from this thread. Mostly I think Tarantino’s work is misunderstood here.

Expecting some replies at least.

And, Frank, here is that one scene he keeps on rehashing (as nicely summed up by Kent Jones – from his interview with Abel Ferrara in Film Comment that someone linked to the other day. He’s referring to just Pulp Fiction/Reservoir Dogs but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t refer to every single one of his films – with the possible exception of Jackie Brown).

“Tarantino is a canny audience manipulator with his eyes on heaven, and he has one trick up his sleeve: a slow build-up to a perfect mixture of horror and hilarity that’s like a drug-rush. Scene after scene proceeds according to this same blueprint.”

I think he’s talented. His persistence, ambition and love for movies is admirable.
Can anyone honestly say that it takes no talent to write and direct a film like Pulp Fiction?

but Res Dogs is not a good example for those of us who are defending Tarantino’s vision, Roscoe 0_o I love it but people will always compare it to the original.

Kill Bill is a blatant rip from many influences (Lady Snowblood, Sword of Doom) but who cares? Its still fun to watch.

Yes I can honestly say that.

so then you honestly believe that it takes no talent to win a Palm d’Or ?

Sometimes.

I disagree

You would.

Frank said, “That said, a few comments above may prove instructive about a possible consensus about one aspect of QT’s work: that whether you like his films or not, he is better at constructing individual SCENES than he is at making whole, unified films.”

I think this is a valid criticism (although I don’t know if there is consensus on it). To me, it comes with the post-modern approach that I think Tarantino employs. Many artists that self-consciously manipulate the artform (in Tarantino’s case—it’s those pulp movies of the 60s and 70s) can have this problem. (See John Zorn in the realm of music.)

Personally, I go back-and-forth on Tarantino. I do think he makes entertaining films, and he definitely has talent. But I do think his films are not always unified, and I don’t think he really has anything serious to say (although I don’t know if that should be held against him).