Quentin Tarantino

[Blib]

I agree that he is indulgent but what director isn't?

I disagree that his homage to the old grindhouse films missed. The choppiness of Death Proof, the bad edits, poor sound, etc.. wasn't trying to copy the original movies. The main movie he referenced is Vanishing Point (1971). When you watch Vanishing Point there aren't bad cuts and all that. What he was trying to recreate was the grindhouse theater experience where you paid almost nothing to see mostly bad films where reels are missing, and the reels that aren't are all chopped up and scratched. I actually found Death Proof to be very entertaining. Not a masterpiece, but a fun homage to the grindhouse theater experience.

On a side note, I recently found out that he owns the rights to Elmore Leonard's early western novel "Forty Lashes Less One". It is one of my favorite books and I hope he eventually makes a movie out of it.

I still look forward to anything he makes. His films are at least entertaining if not a masterpiece.

[Michael]

1. Pulp Fiction (1994) *
2. Reservoir Dogs (1992) *

oMG vilenc iz kewl!!!!!!Q!!11!!

[quentincompson]

1.Pulp Fiction 5/10
2.Jackie Brown 5/10
3.Kill Bill Vol. 1 4/10
4.Resevoir Dogs 4/10
5.Kill Bill Vol. 2 2/10

[Anasazie]

Features:

1. Pulp Fiction (1994) 5/10
2. Jackie Brown (1997) 4/10
3. Reservoir Dogs (1992) 3/10

Shorts:

1. Four Rooms (1995) (segment "The Man from Hollywood") 4/10

[Capo]

Reservoir Dogs is short film material bloated to feature length. All those flashbacks, that manipulate certain relationships, aren't necessary at all; with them, the film loses its focus and tension. I still think the opening act is excellent, up to the first flashback, and the acting is gripping. Otherwise, it's smug and self-important stuff.

Pulp Fiction is better, Jackie Brown is worse, and I have no desire to revisit either Kill Bill film, and even less to see Grindhouse.

Making shit films in the name of homage doesn't shield you from criticism.

[Blib]

Nov 7, 2008 12:45:59 GMT Capo said:

Making shit films in the name of homage doesn't shield you from criticism.

That comment seems awfully closed minded for such an open minded guy running a site full of open minded people.

Criticism is always a part of anything anybody does in life right? But why is it wrong for someone to make films that are entertaining to a lot of people, including myself? Why does it automatically make his movies "shit films" because they are in the name of homage and, apparently, mainstream (and even then not so much).

I'm finding the increased elitism on this board disturbing. It seems that the only way to be able to discuss anything without discussing shit is to have the time to watch 400 movies a year that most people have never seen or heard of, therefore they are art and of better quality.

Fuck elitists, fuck the Good 'Ol boys on the BB, fuck everyone. I fucking hate people.

[Michael]

Haha, whoa.

[Capo]

Nov 8, 2008 8:08:35 GMT Blib said:

Nov 7, 2008 12:45:59 GMT Capo said:

Making shit films in the name of homage doesn't shield you from criticism.

That comment seems awfully closed minded for such an open minded guy running a site full of open minded people.

My comment meant: "You can't shield yourself from would-be criticism by saying, 'Hey, I'm replicating the shoddiness of B-movies, so I'm successful in re-creating that shoddiness. MASTERPIECE!'"

Criticism is always a part of anything anybody does in life right? But why is it wrong for someone to make films that are entertaining to a lot of people, including myself?

I've never said it was wrong to make entertaining films. It would be pretty absurd to do so. But I find nothing pleasurable or entertaining in dialogue cooked up so as to cater to one's own reputation (Kill Bill 2 is unbearable), or fight scenes that go on far too long and scream "pastiche!" at the camera, or all these winks at the camera and in-references to cult movies that you can all cheer to if you've seen the originals. It's more self-congratulatory than -indulgent. And it's desperate to be cool.

Tarantino's aware more than anyone of the fact that, alongside Spielberg, his name alone can fill multiplex cinemas.

Why does it automatically make his movies "shit films" because they are in the name of homage and, apparently, mainstream (and even then not so much).

They're not shit because they're in the name of homage, or pastiche, or whatever. I said you can't justify deliberate shitness just because the films you're replicating have an "OMG cult B-movie so shit it's great" reputation preceding them. At least Godard transcended the American B-movies to which Breathless was dedicated.

Who's mentioned "mainstream" in this thread? I didn't. None of this comes down to popularity. "Audience reception" bores the tits off me. It's irrelevant.

I'm finding the increased elitism on this board disturbing. It seems that the only way to be able to discuss anything without discussing shit is to have the time to watch 400 movies a year that most people have never seen or heard of, therefore they are art and of better quality.

This whole paragraph is quite surprising. Does anybody else feel this way? I'd appreciate it if they said so.

Can you bring up any other examples of what you feel is elitism? Besides that Coldplay thread (which I didn't find elitist), I can't think of any in which you'd see that sort of stuff.

What's with the "have the time to watch 400 movies a year" comment? Isn't that synonymous in tone and feeling to "Hey, get a life"?

And the "most people have never seen or heard of" comment is a dig at the alleged obscurity of the films that pop up on this board, right? I'd have to call you up for inverse snobbery right there.

"...therefore they are art and of better quality" makes me think you're suffering from very low self-esteem, as regards the (recurring) complex you have about your own taste in films. We don't subscribe to "arthouse > mainstream" here; at least I don't. Not for the sake of it. That's cultural snobbery, which I abhor. I might have a trend towards less mainstream films, but not because they're mainstream in themselves, but because there's a massive, unavoidable limitation set upon the medium's possibilities in the populist sphere. It's rare when a mainstream film is allowed to push boundaries; money talks.

Fuck elitists, fuck the Good 'Ol boys on the BB, fuck everyone. I fucking hate people.

Indeed.

Though, what's made you mention the BB?

[Robert C.]

Not necessarily a huge fan of his, but I think Pulp Fiction is actually one of the more ingenuitive and ground-breaking scripts ever. I'd give it probably 8 out of 10 stars.

[svsg]

I liked Pulp Fiction a lot. All the random dialogues thrown in just for fun... like the "The path of the righteous man" and "Kahuna burger" etc.. I think the popularity of Pulp fiction encouraged him to use random dialogues in subsequent films too which became pretty repetitive and boring.
How was Kill Bill 2 (I haven't seen the first one) a homage to chinese martial arts movies? I actually love those B-Chinese martial arts movies much more than KB2. It is fair to say that I am not a fan of Tarantino.

But that aside, I too have felt like Blibble some times and I have mentioned about it too. But I do hope that we all find common ground. More important than the list of 400 obscure films are the few films that one personally connects to. It definitely shows up in the enthusiasm that one has for the film. When DVC mentions about Godard or Kino mentions about The Wire or Capo mentions about Malick or Blibble mentions about the horror movies, I definitely get motivated to see and experience the same. Those monthly counts, yearly rankings, whatever don't do anything for me.

[Omar]

Nov 8, 2008 17:32:20 GMT Capo said:

or all these winks at the camera and in-references to cult movies that you can all cheer to if you've seen the originals. It's more self-congratulatory than -indulgent. And it's desperate to be cool.

In all fairness, I feel like I've read similar criticisms of Godard.

I fucking love (you) people.

[Blib]

I've spent the last half hour typing and deleting and I'm getting exhausted trying to respond to all of your statements Capo. So I'm not going to try.

Basically, this site is too smart for me. I give up. I tried to make it a challenge but I have a life, which is an insult to myself. I didn't mean you guys don't have a life when I said that about "400 movies...". I am jealous. I wish I had time to go out with friends drinking, watching a movie every day if I wanted, etc... I hate that I can't, and for that reason I'll never be able to discuss anything here on this site. I know because I've tried for the past year.

You nailed it on the head Capo. I have low self esteem. I never kept that a secret here but thanks for finally noticing and using it as a cheap shot.

svsg and Omar, as always you are the voice of reason.

I let my emotions get the best of me and said some stupid things. I'm truly sick of negativity. I'm sick of people saying "that's shit", "that's ugly", "that's stupid". I'm around it all the time while I work, when I come home, when I try to get away from it all and come on here or the BB or where ever... and it all makes me negative as well. It's so much easier to be critical than it is to compliment, so people do what's easy.

I said some stupid things because I let my emotions get the best of me. I'm sorry this post has nothing to do with Tarantino but I give up. I'm happier watching shit movies with the kids and laughing and having a good time than I am trying to be more enlightened.

[Kino]

Blibble, this site is not too smart for you. You write well, and you can easily express what you feel. And it's not true that you'll never be able to discuss anything on this site. I've shared this sentiment with you already, but I'll discuss The Wire with you. I WANT to discuss it more. Where are you in Season 3? Halfway? Done? I haven't responded much to your posts thus far because it's kind of hard because what I want to say is better understood in future episodes' contexts for instance; thus, I hold back.

Let's talk about, say, Ferris Bueller's Day Off or whatever. I watch quite a few movies on cable a lot like Can't Hardly Wait and Bring It On among other things. Remember this?

I love those films. I mean I rarely post on 'em because, well, they're well-known but not inferior. I do spend most of my posts on relatively lesser known films and directors because I feel they deserve more fans or a larger viewership... and I do happen to genuinely like most of them.

[Capo]

Nov 11, 2008 5:04:33 GMT Blib said:

You nailed it on the head Capo. I have low self esteem. I never kept that a secret here but thanks for finally noticing and using it as a cheap shot.

It wasn't intended in that way at all, and I apologise if it came across that way. If anything, I was telling you not to belittle your own taste in films. Essentially, I was replying to this:

"400 films a year that most people have never seen or heard of, therefore they are art and of better quality."

You've put that "therefore" in for a reason; what was it? Where has anyone on this board ever said "This film is better quality than that film because it is art, and it is art because most people have never seen or heard of it"?

"Art" isn't defined by niche appeal.

And I've replied to you several times here in the same vein as Kino has; encouraging you in times of uncertainty or insecurity or whatever.

I let my emotions get the best of me and said some stupid things. I'm truly sick of negativity. I'm sick of people saying "that's shit", "that's ugly", "that's stupid".

Stuff like, "Fuck elitists, fuck the Good 'Ol boys on the BB, fuck everyone. I fucking hate people", you mean? Or were you intending irony with such disdain?

It's so much easier to be critical than it is to compliment, so people do what's easy.

This is quite a curious sentiment, and one that I've shared in the past. But I don't agree. Being critical isn't the opposite to being positive; "negative" is a better word, and I agree, people can seem overly negative, without constructive feedback to a film (though we don't see much negativity here).

I think loving a film can be just as "easy" as hating one, sometimes; I've chosen to ignore certain flaws in a film because I've felt the good bits outweighed them. I'm trying to get beyond that at the moment, though; loving scenes in a film doesn't make the flaws disappear - and it'd be a dishonesty on my part if I were to carry on in this way.

To make this all relevant to Tarantino; I admire that, around when Pulp Fiction came out, he was doing a lot of interviews citing different directors such as Godard as major influences on his work, and how that might have in turn got young film-lovers into the nouvelle vague, etc. But reading his interviews these days, looking at the (what I deem deliberate) long hiatuses between films (to spark "Tarantino craze" and expectation; not to mention commercial profit), looking at his careerist lingo (ticking boxes off for certain genres he wants to tackle), the self-conscious inclusion of kooky, "whacky" dialogue now that he's famous for it, the general self-congratulatory and self-indulgent tone of his films...

He doesn't do it for me, and I think, without having seen them in so long, that Kill Bill 2 was or is garbage (the first is a bit better). We might have to agree to disagree here, as banal as that negotiation is.

[ronnierocketago]

I do think that QT so far seems regressing as a filmmaker. Yeah RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?

QT at that time was a guy full of energy and ambition and (maybe useless) film knowledge, but shit his only other directing work at that time was what, some unfinished picture he was making with his buddies (which DOGS was to be as well until Keitel decided to do it, and got it booked a 1-2 million budget)

Either way, sometimes being an amateur has advantages because you don't really know wtf you're supposed to do, or what cinema rules demand of you. Not always, but DOGS is an example where Tarantino is his least self-indulgent on his love for bad B-movies, the 70s, and killing narrative energy so to quote Z-films no one gives a shit about.

Seriously people, you think QT could make something like DOGS today? No fucking way, not as KILL BILL and DEATH PROOF show so far.

PULP FICTION is a masterpiece too like DOGS, but even then you'll notice how more polished and refined and arguably even more pretentious it is....reminds me of how Robert Rodriguez surprised everyone with his 7000 buck EL MARIACHI, then made a sequel in DESPERADO that cost millions, had high production quality...and wasn't as good or interesting or exciting.

Now mind you, I liked QT's script for INGLORIOUS BASTERDS that's floating on the Internet, but folks in reading it, I notice how I've been through some of his themes and scenes before, except with a WW2 Action/French New Wave nerdism attached.

It's better than DEATH PROOF at least, but is that saying much?

[Capo]

"RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Is this a serious question? I can think of many first features that aren't pretentious.

(Define pretentious. I'm not quite following you.)

[Capo]

1. Pulp Fiction (1994) *****
2. Jackie Brown (1997) *****
3. Reservoir Dogs (1992) *****
4. Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003) *****
5. Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004) *****

[RNL]

Dec 8, 2008 7:50:56 GMT ronnierocketago said:

It's better than DEATH PROOF at least, but is that saying much?

Less has ne'er been said.

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 8, 2008 13:08:30 GMT Capo said:

"RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Is this a serious question? I can think of many first features that aren't pretentious.

(Define pretentious. I'm not quite following you.)

Well, what do you think it means?

Not to be a dick, but isn't pretentiousness, the good and the bad, being hyperbolic self-importance?

[Capo]

Dec 9, 2008 4:34:06 GMT ronnierocketago said:

Well, what do you think it means?

Not to be a dick, but isn't pretentiousness, the good and the bad, being hyperbolic self-importance?

It might be.

But:

"RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Not every filmmaker, even when starting out, is a conceited jerk. 'S'all I was sayin', yo'.