haha,John,whoah man..relax…i understand why so many despise of Tarantino and he certainly doesn’t belong to the Bay theory(and other despicable Hollywood directors like the one of National Treasure or that douche of 300)…
it’s just that sometimes,his references are becoming too much and excessively tedious,not for the sake of him but against the sake of the original films!Reservoir is actually a complete rip-off of Ringo Lam’s City of Fire,but i accept it even if the original is better…Pulp is a mash-up of quotas and gangster films and i was astounded by it!Jackie is a welcoming addition to the heist/crime genre with older star comebacks,twists and smooth rides,i accepted that too..
but seriously,after (and during) Kill Bill this has become sort of irritating for me personally,especially after that corny pseudo b-movie homage named Death Proof which i believe Russ Meyer did try to kill him six feet under from where he is…
and i don’t think with Basterds anything’s gonna change either.i won’t refuse seeing it,because yes,i still feel he’s gonna return to the 90’s era….but i won’t rush to check it!
i just wish for the ones who are hailing Tarantino that they do actually believe most of the films he gets inspirations from are undeniable classics…..but by all means,Tarantino is not on the Bay category,that’s quite silly…
David H.
Nay.
Big mouth — no ideas.
Not all movies are about ideas. Some movies are about emotions.
KJ,
@Tarantino is interested in expanding the universe of filmmaking trough the use of genre like Hitchcock did
Please keep reading.
Doinel,
“Thankfully “Inglorious Basterds” seems ready to tank and that should be the end of him.”
This is what I posted on my first post about QT
“I believe Tarantino is yet to create his best work. I hope Inglorious Bastards flops so that he can finally leave his “homage” stage and move on to the Tarantino stage. He needs to stop quoting others films so much and make something people can quote him for.”
I read in a film publication (cough Film Comment cough) that this could be QT’s masterpiece, but we’ll see.
Nay. I don’t think he’s made a decent films since “Pulp Fiction” (his only original work and flash of brilliance) All that coke and pot destroyed his potential, imo. Then again, I have yet to see Inglorious Basterds, but what can we really expect? Bradd Pitt. Nazis. War. Sounds like a tired topic to me. I don’t think anyone could disagree that the bulk of Tarantino’s work consists of not one original idea. His work is a hodge podge of other great films he saw while working at a video store. And in reference to the earlier posts on Jackie Brown being an “original” work. Two titles: “Rum Punch” and “Friends of Eddie Coyle.”
Wow, Film Comment called Inglorious Basters his “masterpiece”??
I’m skeptical that QT can make an effective film anymore. I guess I’d be in that group who loved him back in the day. I saw Reservoir Dogs when it came out in theaters in 1992 when I was still in high school and it blew me away and I kept with him through the 1990s up until Jackie Brown. Then the 2000s came and QT seemed lost in a cloud of pot smoke indulgence, riffing off worse and worse films and totally dissipating his talent. I hated both Kill Bills, disliked Death Proof and the preview/early word of mouth for Inglorious Basterds doesn’t inspire confidence. That said, I’ll still see his films when they come out in theaters. What’s wrong with me? I guess I can’t quit him completely.Ari, you’re like Jack Twist in Brokeback. You just can’t quit QT….
LOL @ Ari can’t quit QT
Ari,
Yes, my reaction was similar to yours, but as I said before, we’ll see.
Yeah, they said the Kill Bill films were supposed to be his masterpieces tool, and look how ridiculous they were – a complete waste of celluloid if you ask me. However, like Ari, I don’t think I can give up on this guy completely just yet. I think we’re all waiting to see if he has another Pulp Fiction in him. He is still pretty young. Hopefully he’ll kick the drugs. I’d like to see what he can do when he’s sober and not writing all that self-indulgent, crappy dialogue like Kevin Smith.
yay, i love his playfulness, the visuality, the great dialogues and yes, he is borrowing stuff and yes, he is using typical genre forms, but he is doing it really good and this is just his style. He is like Andy Warhol, a pop director interprating the movie scene/genres/cliches whit their own weapons. I guess a lot of you who call him unoriginal or bad are just those high art film fanatics who can’t relax and enjoy some great humor and plots without some higher meaning.
How many Westerns are in Once Upon a Time in The West? Does Leone get ripped for “borrowing” so much from so many? Is Tarrantino in the same league with Leone? Of course not. Compare A Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo) to Once … West. One is OK the other is amazing. Maybe Tarrantino will evolve and bring us more than entertainment. And he gets my yay for bringing, so far, good entertainment.
QT’s got my eyeballs on hooks and is pulling them innevitably closer to the theatrical release of Inglorius basterds. I dont know about any of you screwballs who think that bantering about how much you are annoyed by/dislike/hate/dispise Tarantino somehow makes you special…well your all a bunch of Bastards (and yes I spelled it correct because only cool people are worthy of being called Basterds). QT’s is probly stoked that so many pple are deeply discussing his films, wether positive or negative I dont really think he gives a shit. All he wants is your SCALPS, uhh i mean…All he wants is people to go see his movies. And that is what I plan on doing; again, and again, and again!
Im just curious though…If I gave you a harpoon and showed you where Tarantino will be eating lunch tomorow would anyone here actually pull the trigger without the slightest ounce of regret? hmmmmmmm decisions decisions.
and none of this was meant to pursuade anyone of anything :)
Seems you ran out of meds.
ha no i just refuse them! but i dont think i was all that “ranty” was I?
yay. his movies are entertaining and highly re-watchable.
Nay.
The promise QT showed in his first two films, he never delivered on. Since then, when he is not busy being red-carpet paparazzi fodder, he is merely the peddler of trashy pop culture who thinks fetishising women’s feet is clever.
Jean-Luc Godard started his directoral career paying homage to American cinema, but quickly moved on and developed his own style, proving that he was more that just a ‘copy-cat’, whereas QT has made a whole career out of cinematic homage, cutting and pasting bits out of other films into his own, and showing no signs of abating.
Unless QT can produce something original, he would do better to just issue lists of films he intends to rip-off and suggest people go see them instead of putting so much effort and resources into replicating them.
Sekzee, in response to your question, I don’t have any Mark Chapman tendencies, but I would not be terribly cut up if QT announced his retirement from film-making.
your an honest man Will.
@ AmaL7hea – “I guess a lot of you who call him unoriginal or bad are just those high art film fanatics who can’t relax and enjoy some great humor and plots without some higher meaning.”
So you have to be a “high art film fanatic” to dislike crappy films? To say that Tarantino’s films, post “Pulp Fiction,” are chock full of “great humor” and “great plots” is like saying Judd Apatow’s films are great social commentary. If your idea of great humor is a bunch of chicks sitting around a table wearing out the “F” word and talking about absolutely nothing, well . . .
what he does is resurrect dead genres, and i think his movies are some sort of love letter to the movies he loves, but all the directors that made those are either dead, or making crappy movies… so his job is to make people not loose their faith in cinema.
I don’t like him. Dog’s was good(I hear it to be a rip off but I have never seen the other film.) Jackie Brown is probably the best film he will ever do. Kill Bill part 1 was great so great and part 2 sucked big donkey ball’s. Pulp was made by Sam Jackson and that is mostly it. The films he rips off are usually better and more entertaining than his own. I fill the same pain when I am conversing with someone about directors and they say QT as I do when they say M. Bay. It seems to me that he’s finally giving up trying to hide his rip-offs any more and is now just doing a strait up re-make. I will watch Bastards and might enjoy the hell out of it but do you think that Natural Born Killers would have been half the film it was if QT directed it. I don’t hate the man but he gets too much credit. He is given the credit of someone who has changed cinema but all he has done is referenced films most people have over looked.
It’s odd to me that each person has their own moment where QT lost it. Like the last quote that thinks Kill Bill Part 1 is great but part 2 sucked. What the fuck? Why make such an artificial and arbitrary judgment? In fact, part 2 was mildly and marginally less awful than the 2nd. Much as I can’t quit QT, it’s because I don’t believe in killing my idols. But then again maybe I am also guilty of making an artificial distinction between his work in the 1990s (which I love) from his work in the 2000s (which I hate).
QT, for better or for worse, was important me in the 1990s. And I won’t be ashamed in admitting that it was through QT that I discovered better filmmakers (and I’m also not ashamed to admit that I only saw my first Godard after seeing Pulp Fiction – I was young). At the same time, I don’t think anyone can say City On Fire is a better film than Reservoir Dogs. I remember feeling giddy enthusiasm when QT sat behind me at a midnight screening of Lucio Fulci’s The Beyond (rereleased by Tarantino’s own Rolling Thunder) at the Angelika in the late 1990s.
At the same time, it’s too easy to discount him completely than to acknowledge his importance and draw a line when you think he lost it. There’s a quote on the last page that says the dialogue in Pulp Fiction is horrible. This to me is either from someone too young to understand his relevance or someone so old as to discount him entirely. To me, it’s clearly after Jackie Brown that he lost it, a film that answered criticisms of his previous films by portraying a far more personal and adult (as in grown up) vision. It’s a great film, even if much of the emotional impact comes from the Delfonics soundtrack. Unfortunately, after that, he seemed to regress into his infantile bullshit that leads him to the present. So if I had to answer the question, he’s a big nay today but with some serious reservations about his past work.
I just want to address the reference to my post. Kill bill part 1 is so entertaining that it can’t be denied. Part 2 is boring with a shitty ending. Someone should have told him no. I never though he was that great. It took me about three tries to get through pulp fiction. When I watch it now I skip over Uma’s part. I know that it’s a touchy subject for many film enthusiast because that single guy put some on a path looking for other film’s. That’s a good thing, a very good thing. For me it seems that pulp fiction is a film you are suppose to love and not question just like Scarface. It seems to be a fad and if you say you don’t enjoy it people look at you funny and ostracize you for it(Maybe I’m being a little Melodramatic). If you hand them a Godard film or Tokyo Drifter they would not know what to do. Most often they would just say how bad it was or not even watch it because it is subbed or B&W. That makes me sad and that’s why it effects me. If QT got you into film that’s great, and if your here then I assume you are and you are not the ones that bug me. Pulp Fiction is one of the most quotable movies of all time but I can’t stand parts of the film if I am alone, they just seem tedious.
yep. more hits than misses
D. 2 Inches, I have no idea what to say to you. Kill Bill bored the shit out of me and that “can’t be denied”.No, I really can’t deny how boring and derivative it was. And yes I found Kill Bill 2 to be terrible as well but marginally better than the first. So I have no idea what movie you were seeing but can appreciate why Tarantino wanted them to be viewed together.
Honestly, I also wonder how old you are. You seem exactly like the kind of person who has no sense of perspective on Tarantino and can’t separate the wheat from the chaff (or at least why he’s important from why he’s not). Otherwise, I can’t understand someone who defends Kill Bill, Vol 1 and criticizes Pulp Fiction as “tedious”. I’m willing to believe those who think he’s entirely crap (and, by default, I only hang on to his earlier stuff out of misplaced nostalgia) but I can’t take seriously anyone who thinks his later work is superior to his earlier efforts.
ARI ^ what if his later work is more relative to certain individuals. I myself happen to love Kill Bill. During my childhood I watched a lot of kung fu cinema and that is where my interest happens to lie. Its a bloody, action-driven revenge tale and nothing more. Id say that I actually enjoy Kill Bill more than Pulp. Is it a better film? Not even close.
@Sekzee
That’s why people on this forum need to lighten up.
We all like different things for different reasons.
After being here for less than a week, at times, it feels like this forum is just a sounding board for those who like to hear themselves talk. Like an echo in a cave.
We all should be better listeners and exercise better judgement on people’s opinions.
But, I digress, and my post is off-topic…
well glad to have you RAY and there are a lot of great threads out there that arent so one-dimensional and pointless
@Sekzee – It seems sort of pointless to respond with a “to each their own” when you yourself acknowledge that Pulp Fiction is a better film than Kill Bill. But here comes the schoolmarms scolding me for a lack of discretion and tact for pointing out the self-evident (I think Ray needs to lighten up and not get so touchy lest we all join hands in a circle and sing kumbaya as a sign of our mutual love and respect). For better or for worse (probably for worse), Pulp changed the landscape of film. It has an ingenious structure, sharp dialogue, and is a watermark of its era. Kill Bill is a bloated, lazy self-indulgent mess. It is the work of someone who has completely lost it. If you like it because it reminds you of your childhood, that’s fine with me. It’s not a defensible opinion to me although I apologize for not exercising better judgment in assessing it.
Yay. Why is originality the only criteria for quality? His story lines are superb and his dialogue is refreshing if on occasion (quite often actually) stiff and irritating, – but it is always interesting. His technique, his love of cinema, his sense of humour and dare I say it (he is after all American) his feeling for irony are superb. Seam M. Carter hit the nail on the head.
@Lester “a lot of you…” ;)
ARI – All of QT’s films are self-indulgent. I like the film because I happen to think it is a brilliant/witty/ingenious/bloody/entertaining film, which most of Tarantino’s films are (aside from Death Proof). And since apparently in this thread we are just stating our opinions as fact, its definately one of the top 20 films of the decade. :O
Doinel
The problem with Tarantino is that chin. Every time I see a picture of him I have to wonder why anyone would have their chin surgically augmented.