Do you get Tarantino?

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for majkiboy
Majkiboy

1104

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

#51  Edited By Majkiboy

I actually hate the kill bill movies. But some other stuff is really cool and awesome. He really does things outside the box. But yeh, his mind is reaaaly fucked up.  
What's up with the guys laughter?
Anyway, he really knows what he's doing and he likes it.
I'm glad that he can earn money from that stuff :P
 
 

Avatar image for quacktastic
Quacktastic

1065

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52  Edited By Quacktastic

I think his movies are supposed to be 'love letters' to genres past.
Really, I just wanted to say Jackie Brown is great. Deal with this.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96
deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96

8259

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

I love his movies, I think there greeeeeaaaaaaatttt.

Avatar image for parademise
GunnBjorn

2905

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#54  Edited By GunnBjorn

After Jacky Brown i lost interest in his work.
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#55  Edited By jakob187
@Lashe: There are reasons why the conventions you are putting down are decades old - they are tried and true storytelling elements.  Romeo and Juliet is how old?  Nonetheless, it remains one of the most read pieces of fictional work in the world.  Why?  The universal storytelling elements are familiar.  Therefore, it comes down to being less about stereotypical storytelling devices and more about the quality of performance and delivery of those elements in the movie as a whole.  Unfortunately, Hollywood is also about making money, and so yes, a bunch of slosh DOES get thrown into the ring that is stereotypical, dry, and all-around below mediocre.  However, Tarantino launched into the mainstream because of three simple elements: 
  • Kids and teenagers think cussing is cool
  • Kids and teenagers think blood is cool
  • Kids and teenagers think violence is cool
 
Quentin isn't stupid, and therefore, he mixes all the same elements REPEATEDLY into his films and then just throws a ton of pop culture references and "homages" into it and calls it a movie.  If you look at the majority of people that even defend him as a filmmaker, the age demographic is pretty narrow.  Meanwhile, cinema aficionados look at Tarantino and laugh at his weak attempts at filmmaking.  I dare the guy to actually come up with an original script idea that doesn't pay homage to any form of movie in his past, use basic storytelling devices, not drop a single pop culture reference, and THEN we'll judge him as a filmmaker, director, and writer.  =  / 
 
Hell, even his newest film had to CHANGE A LETTER IN ITS NAME in order to not infringe on copyrights!  However, I won't go any further on that argument, as I haven't seen the movie.  I can only speculate as to how hard it rips off the original Inglorious Bastards franchise of films.  I'll wait until DVD. 
 
The only real credit I will give Tarantino at all is True Romance.  As a script, that thing was pretty slick.  It's got a lot of the same shit that I hate about him, like the pop culture references and shit, but at least the story isn't Super Rip-Off Central.  Unfortunately...it had Christian Slater.  It was a good movie that could've been a spectacularly awesome movie...had they just changed the lead actor. 
 
Unfortunately, there is a slight flaw in my arguments about Tarantino relying on pop culture for his dialogue and story:  I dig Kevin Smith's work, and the majority of the shit that guy has for dialogue happens to be pop culture references.  However, Zack and Miri didn't have too many, and it was still an excellent comedy.
Avatar image for lashe
Lashe

1413

Forum Posts

35

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#56  Edited By Lashe
@jakob187: I can get the analogy of it being 'tried and true' mechanics, but I really don't view it that way at all to begin with, I view it more as I would view generi-pop music which infects the charts which is just fomulaic, basic and soulless. Having studied both Music and Film at University, I probably appreciate Tarantino at an academic level more than I do actually appreciating his films for their content, much like I can appreciate the works of Schoenberg or Berg at an academic level. I love the comments he has on cinema and history of cinema  within his films (very noticeable in Inglorious Basterds), the mise-en-scene is simply incredible, he uses the camera and edits shots in a very unique manner which pretty much mimics his seemingly auteuristic quirkiness to a T.
 
As for critics 'laughing' at him, I personally find that a very narrow-minded comment. I mean, have you actually ever researched critical analysis of him and his work? I will admit there is an inherent 'splitting' between critics in where they fall with regards to Tarantino, but there is a reason why the man is studied in depth at Universities all over the world, there is a reason why students will write papers in exams on the man and his work, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with them bashing his work as artless gibberish with no iota of talent to be seen.
Avatar image for toowalrus
toowalrus

13408

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#58  Edited By toowalrus

The 'Bear Jew' is reason enough for him to earn my respect. I still haven't seen Pulp Fiction, though, so I really can't judge.

Avatar image for whisperkill
Whisperkill

3044

Forum Posts

293

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 11

#59  Edited By Whisperkill

Yeah, I fucking love him, his movies are amazing, even the ones he produces
Avatar image for turbomonkey138
turbomonkey138

5288

Forum Posts

283

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#60  Edited By turbomonkey138

His films are the only films i really enjoy watching .

Avatar image for floodiastus
floodiastus

1288

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 1

#61  Edited By floodiastus

What is there not to get :) 
 
He is great, I am not to fond of his latest duo, death proof etc. 
 
But he captures a mood in his films that are quite unique imho. 
 
Everything is art, and everyone will appreciate different things... just let it go

Avatar image for colinryan
ColinRyan

306

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#62  Edited By ColinRyan

Inglorious Basterds was awesome! Funniest movie I've seen in a good while. Don't go to it expecting a deep, meaningful movie. I hate it when people dig deep into a film which doesn't, and isn't supposed to have much depth. His movies are what they are, and take them at face value.

Avatar image for hamst3r
Hamst3r

5520

Forum Posts

7837

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 2

#63  Edited By Hamst3r

 
I've enjoyed most of what I've seen from Tarantino. :)

Avatar image for ichiroyagiza
IchiroYagiza

453

Forum Posts

6965

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 8

#64  Edited By IchiroYagiza

I've enjoy quite a lot all of his movies. 
Avatar image for rhcpfan24
RHCPfan24

8663

Forum Posts

22301

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 8

#65  Edited By RHCPfan24

Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are two of my favorite films ever and I definitely regard them as masterpieces. At least at the time, the nonlinear approach of PF was groundbreaking, the writing was stellar and original, and the acting was fantastic. I just saw Inglorious Basterds and thought it was one of the best movies  I have seen in awhile. It is up there with Reservoir Dogs in my opinion. 

Avatar image for inkeiren
inkeiren

976

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66  Edited By inkeiren

I enjoy his movies a lot, but I don't like him as a person. I watch interviews with him and I try to like him, but I just can't.
 
I completely understand anyone not enjoying his movies though.

Avatar image for momentarylogic
momentarylogic

443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 4

#67  Edited By momentarylogic

From what I have seen, the man has a way with words. That is enough for me.

Avatar image for pakx
pakx

981

Forum Posts

30

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

#68  Edited By pakx

Quentin Tarentino is a cocain-adled plagarist.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c7ea8553cb72
deactivated-5c7ea8553cb72

4753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0


All of Quentin's movies are awesome.
Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#70  Edited By Diamond

I get him, it's superficial, some people like it, I don't.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#71  Edited By jakob187
@Lashe said:

"I will admit there is an inherent 'splitting' between critics in where they fall with regards to Tarantino, but there is a reason why the man is studied in depth at Universities all over the world, there is a reason why students will write papers in exams on the man and his work, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with them bashing his work as artless gibberish with no iota of talent to be seen. "

The reason would be pretentiousness?  =  /  Universities also believe Jonathan Demme to be some kind of a genius because he directed Silence of the Lambs...a translation of a book...yet the only other film he's done outside of that which is even worth mentioning was Philadelphia, and that's only because Tom Hanks won an Oscar.  Therefore, it's tough for me to honestly take most university teachings about the lessons of cinema too seriously when they are teaching something like Tarantino's work and skipping over something like Buenel or Fellini or Tarkovsky!  There is far more to be taken from the things these guys had to say than anything Tarantino has to say. 
 
Needless to say, no amount of analysis into Tarantino's work, despite his unusual shooting styles, are going to convince me that he's little more than a rip-off.
Avatar image for retroice4
RetroIce4

4433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72  Edited By RetroIce4

 @bulletbeast: Pretty much all right. 

Avatar image for lashe
Lashe

1413

Forum Posts

35

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#73  Edited By Lashe
@jakob187: Haha I would not suggest for a second that Tarantino is somewhat favoured over the Eisenstein's and Wong Kar Wai's of the world and put on some pedestal in the academic scene as the holy grail of cinema, but the man does have talent. I can see why the unoriginality of his work may be off-putting for some, but that's not the be all and end all of his films whatsoever. Some people get off on the pop culture, some don't and I can totally see why. 
 
But when I sit down and watch a film, I am not just looking at moving pictures and listening to dialogue, but instead taking in every movement of the camera, structure of framing, editing techniques, lighting, devices, depth of the image, form, listening for the capture of every sound and searching for every stylistic nuance I can to get the most out the film. There were moments yesterday when I saw Inglorious Basterds where I was laughing at the editing of a scene, or the movement of the camera just because it so well amplifies the humour in a particular situation, which so perfectly mimics the tone of the film itself. 
 
Am I looking into things too much? Probably. But that's what I like when I view a film, and when it comes to Tarantino it is just a feast on every level because he is not someone who will just do something half-assed, the man does know what he's doing when it comes to film and mise-en-scene especially, independent of his writing.
 
I'm not trying to win you round and create a Tarantino fan of you because I feel that to be a wasted effort, but I do feel l I have to fight the corner somewhat for the guy if he's going to be dismissed as being  talentless and don't mean any harm in this game of tennis that has formed between us here haha.
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#74  Edited By jakob187
@Lashe: I can't deny that the man has a flair for lens work.  He does have unorthodox camera movements, as well as a certain style of shooting that I can't really put down.  He's studied his stuff pretty well in the technical aspect of filmmaking.  However...that isn't enough.  When I look at someone like Scorsese and watch his editing and camera movement and close-up focuses, every single nuance that he shows off has about seven million times more style than anything Tarantino does.  The one thing that someone like Scorsese has above Tarantino is SUBSTANCE.  That's my big arguing point about Tarantino.  He has no substance without stealing from everyone else around him.  Sure, you could accuse someone like Kurosawa and Scorsese of the same thing (Scorsese has been accused to using too much of the Italian techniques, while Kurosawa shot-by-shot stole an entire scene for one of his flicks...can't remember it off the top of my head, though).  However, those two directors have also proven that when they aren't using someone else's material as a referential point, as well as offering something of an original story, they can do BRILLIANT things.  In terms of debuts, Mean Streets still stomps the shit out of Reservoir Dogs.  In terms of translating material, Throne of Blood is still considered to be the greatest cinematic recreation of MacBeth in history and it doesn't even use most of the script.  Meanwhile, Tarantino wasn't even able to write Kill Bill without loading it full of stolen shit like the Crazy 88s, the Bride's costume, Hattori Hanzo, and especially the Leone/Peckinpah-inspired second half of Kill Bill. 
 
I will say, though...that Uma buried alive in the coffin was something to behold. 
 
Needless to say, I don't even give a shit about Tarantino anymore in this discussion.  I have a new respect for you as a person, sir.  It's good to know that someone around here can actually debate filmmaking!!!  THANK YOU!
Avatar image for lashe
Lashe

1413

Forum Posts

35

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#75  Edited By Lashe

 @jakob187: Haha, same goes for yourself - refreshing to have some nicely constructed discussion about film!

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#76  Edited By jakob187
@Lashe said:
"  @jakob187: Haha, same goes for yourself - refreshing to have some nicely constructed discussion about film! "
Minute I saw Wong Kar Wai, I knew that this wasn't an argument that would go anywhere!  lol
Avatar image for osaladin
Osaladin

2699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77  Edited By Osaladin

His movies are alright.

Avatar image for kmdrkul
kmdrkul

3497

Forum Posts

213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78  Edited By kmdrkul

Both his writing and his directing are acquired tastes...

Avatar image for alexb
AlexB

1052

Forum Posts

1406

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 10

#79  Edited By AlexB

What's a Movie? A movie is there to tell a story. In my opinion close to no one has done that better than Tarantino in the last 20 years. His movies are engaging and ripe with great dialogue, and have style for days. Not a whole lot to "get". It's a movie, it's there to entertain and that's what it does. I think a movie that succeeds is one that you can come back to many many times and still find something new and exciting about it. All his movies have that quality so yeah I'd say I "get Tarantino".

Avatar image for buzz_clik
buzz_clik

7590

Forum Posts

4259

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#80  Edited By buzz_clik
@HandsomeDead said:
" Anything after True Romance is terrible. You'll get people coming in here trying to defend Pulp Fiction etc but they're nothing more than the Family Guy of movies for me. In the same way that will rip something off verbatim and use the direct reference as a joke, Tarantino takes full scenes and ideas from other movies and because they're usually foreign, acts as if the audience won't notice.  Oh, wait, I forgot Samuel L. Jackson says nigger a lot and shouts in Pulp Fiction. That film is awesome. "
Reservior dogs may have been 'inspired' by City on Fire, but they're different films. Just because you take the idea from one film and make something based on it, that doesn't make it exactly the same experience. Tarantino usually infuses his own style into the films he makes (dialogue, shooting style, editing), and that for me is enough to make it a different film.
 
That being said, the distaste you experience with Tarantino's work was something I met with the Kill Bill movies (the first more than the second, but both induced it). Those are prime examples of the homage car veering off the road and crashing into the rip-off ditch.
Avatar image for ryanwho
ryanwho

12011

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81  Edited By ryanwho
@pakx said:
" Quentin Tarentino is a cocain-adled plagarist. "
If you gotta plagiarize, you might as well be on cocaine. Makes your version more frenzied and crazy.
Avatar image for clean
Clean

2432

Forum Posts

621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#82  Edited By Clean

He's goofy, but I love it. 
 
Kill Bill was fantastic, Grind House was fantastic, and Pulp Fiction was a classic. 
 
I can't wait to catch his new film.

Avatar image for jerr
Jerr

536

Forum Posts

54

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#83  Edited By Jerr
@ryanwho:  Haha I agree wholeheartedly, but I still don't want him to stop. The "Dead Nigger Storage" scene in Pulp Fiction is amazing.
Avatar image for fr0br0
fr0br0

3255

Forum Posts

151

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By fr0br0

Entering this thread now:
 
Tarantino is a great writer. One of the greatest of our generation. If you don't think so, you're a fucking moron. You have horrible taste in whatever writing you prefer. If you don't like the flow of a natural conversation because you hardly ever enter conversations, then so be it. But don't say the guy can't write when almost every movie he's written for, the dialog has been way above the par.
 
Now for directing. Tarantino is very on and off about the direction stand point of his movies. Movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction stand out as his best because he was new to the big game and nobody knew his name. Now most of Tarantino's movies consist of him directing them as if he was rubbing his dick on the camera just so everybody could see. Just because he can write a single scene using an hour's worth of dialog, doesn't mean he should. For the most part I love most of Tarantino's movies (Haven't seen Inglorious yet) but I have to admit, at some points, Death Proof was pretty dreadful because of all the tiny tiny subtexts in his dialog that could have been edited shorter to flow better with the story and the action. But all Death Proof did to me was entertain me for 20 minutes, bore me for an hour, and entertain me for the last part again. I really enjoy his movies when he incorporates his genius writing well with his stories, but if he up fronts his stories with the dialog, then you have the Tarantino I hate.