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
Do you get Tarantino?
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."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. "
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.
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.
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!
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".
" 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.
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.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment