Tarantino and his films? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Actors And Auteurs



Message


HowlingMad -> Tarantino and his films? (3/11/2012 11:29:39 AM)

Hi everyone,
Ok i adore Tarantino and his films so iv chosen Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds to do a research project on but i need primary research, basically other peoples views.

So what makes his style so unique?
Why does it create tension in certain scenes? (e.g Hans Landa and his opening scene)
How are the films different? Or the same?

Basically i need any views you may have on this, Igot all the background research but i need people to give me their views posed to questions iv asked... Thanks!!!




siegfried -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (13/11/2012 11:43:28 PM)

Basically, although I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds (and what's with the ridiculous spelling - does he think he's being clever, or witty or funny?), and don't intend to, every other film of Tarantino's that I've seen I thought was a pile of shit. All he seems to do is plunder other films - usually B movies - for ideas. His plots are derivative and unoriginal and his dialogue is pretentious and banal. I shall continue to ignore his films in the future.




Deviation -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (14/11/2012 12:35:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: siegfried

Basically, although I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds (and what's with the ridiculous spelling - does he think he's being clever, or witty or funny?)


It was a reference to the lead member of the group being a bit illiterate.




Russ Whitfield -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (14/11/2012 12:32:42 PM)

I think his non-linear scripts and uber-violence were a shot in the arm... fifteen or twenty years ago. But I don't think he's developed over time and, as Siegfried says, much of his stuff is derivative - especially his magnum opus, Kill Bill.

Granted, he had a track record before that movie, and granted part one was entertaining, but if you or I pitched that idea to an exec producer, we'd be cast out and laughed it.

His style WAS unique, but as I say, its not developed and has, I feel, become almost self-parody.

I think that belief was not suspended in his films - they were sold on their blood and violence quotient, so the tension (for me at any rate) was built up by wondering just how much we were going to see and how much he could get away with in an R-Rating. But that was a good thing, back then - as I say, I think his major impact was not the quality of his movies (I really think they're shit, I own zillions of dvds but not one of his) but his approach to them and his pushing the boundaries of structure and violence.

I'm sure that there are many on the forum that would disagree though - he's definitely a popular chap, so I hope there's some counter view to the negative ones you've so for for your project!

Cheers
Russ




jrewing1000 -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 11:34:32 AM)

How funny. I logged on to Empire Forum to pose the following question:

What do you regard as Tarantino's best film?

I wanted to ask this because I recently re-watched Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 and was totally blown away by how superbly written it is in terms of structure and pacing.

I have recently done a lot of studying on storytelling, plot mechanics etc, and Tarantino has suddenly emerged as a writer who completely understands how stories work regarding structure, character development and pacing.

I do understand why some people don't like his work, he borrows heavily from all over the place, particularly the far east and subversive cinema styles of the 70s. But I don't mind this at all.

So in answer to your question, you should do some studying up on storytelling - particularly Aristotle's 'Poetics', and then revisit Tarantino's films to really appreciate his work.




jrewing1000 -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 11:36:27 AM)

In fact, to add - I feel that Tarantino's best films are yet to come. He seems to be emerging from a 'juvenile' era, where he has been trying all sorts of different, wild things, but since Inglorious Basterds his style has become more matured and far more restrained.




ElephantBoy -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 12:10:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: siegfried

Basically, although I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds (and what's with the ridiculous spelling - does he think he's being clever, or witty or funny?), and don't intend to, every other film of Tarantino's that I've seen I thought was a pile of shit. All he seems to do is plunder other films - usually B movies - for ideas. His plots are derivative and unoriginal and his dialogue is pretentious and banal. I shall continue to ignore his films in the future.

Awesome post! You have redeemed yourself now[:D]

I wouldn't go as far as you, but it is great to see someone else who sees what an overated hack Tarantino is.

The point I would like to make is that even with his good early films Taratino had very little to do with their greatness. For example he might take credit for much of it, but he had very little input when it came to the Pulp Fiction script, and basically that film would not have been half as good without the writing. Also he was lucky that those early films were carried by such good actors. Don't forget also that Jackie Brown which I like too was taken from a novel.




jrewing1000 -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 12:18:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElephantBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: siegfried

Basically, although I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds (and what's with the ridiculous spelling - does he think he's being clever, or witty or funny?), and don't intend to, every other film of Tarantino's that I've seen I thought was a pile of shit. All he seems to do is plunder other films - usually B movies - for ideas. His plots are derivative and unoriginal and his dialogue is pretentious and banal. I shall continue to ignore his films in the future.

Awesome post! You have redeemed yourself now[:D]

I wouldn't go as far as you, but it is great to see someone else who sees what an overated hack Tarantino is.

The point I would like to make is that even with his good early films Taratino had very little to do with their greatness. For example he might take credit for much of it, but he had very little input when it came to the Pulp Fiction script, and basically that film would not have been half as good without the writing. Also he was lucky that those early films were carried by such good actors. Don't forget also that Jackie Brown which I like too was taken from a novel.



Wow some real Tarantino hating going on here. Many directors rely on creative collaboration with other members of the team - actors, cameramen, editors, scriptwriters, producers etc. But the director remains at the creative helm of the project. To dismiss them like this is quite unfair. Name any director you like, and I guarantee they are not responsible for everything they do, nor have they thought of every single idea they have ever had. Everyone borrows, everyone helps each other.

And as for the guy who promises to ignore his films in the future, that's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on the forum.




ElephantBoy -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 12:32:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrewing1000


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElephantBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: siegfried

Basically, although I haven't seen Inglourious Basterds (and what's with the ridiculous spelling - does he think he's being clever, or witty or funny?), and don't intend to, every other film of Tarantino's that I've seen I thought was a pile of shit. All he seems to do is plunder other films - usually B movies - for ideas. His plots are derivative and unoriginal and his dialogue is pretentious and banal. I shall continue to ignore his films in the future.

Awesome post! You have redeemed yourself now[:D]

I wouldn't go as far as you, but it is great to see someone else who sees what an overated hack Tarantino is.

The point I would like to make is that even with his good early films Taratino had very little to do with their greatness. For example he might take credit for much of it, but he had very little input when it came to the Pulp Fiction script, and basically that film would not have been half as good without the writing. Also he was lucky that those early films were carried by such good actors. Don't forget also that Jackie Brown which I like too was taken from a novel.



Wow some real Tarantino hating going on here. Many directors rely on creative collaboration with other members of the team - actors, cameramen, editors, scriptwriters, producers etc. But the director remains at the creative helm of the project. To dismiss them like this is quite unfair. Name any director you like, and I guarantee they are not responsible for everything they do, nor have they thought of every single idea they have ever had. Everyone borrows, everyone helps each other.

And as for the guy who promises to ignore his films in the future, that's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on the forum.

Actually it was Siegfried who said he would ignore his films in the future.

You are missing my point, I am not damning him for having others help him, but am pointing out that he takes too much of the credit and also that people (fanboys mostly) give him too much credit without considering others input. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you watch the opening credits to Pulp Fiction does it not have his name along side the other writers, which makes it look like Tarantino had a big part to play in the writing, whereas it is common knowledge than he had very little.




jrewing1000 -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 12:51:19 PM)


quote:



You are missing my point, I am not damning him for having others help him, but am pointing out that he takes too much of the credit and also that people (fanboys mostly) give him too much credit without considering others input. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you watch the opening credits to Pulp Fiction does it not have his name along side the other writers, which makes it look like Tarantino had a big part to play in the writing, whereas it is common knowledge than he had very little.


Yes I know it was Siegfried who made the stupid point (stupid because anyone who considers themselves a film fan, which I assume Siegfried is since he is posting on a film forum, would not limit themselves in such a way).

As for your point - maybe you could explain what you mean by 'too much credit'. He is the director. He is not responsible for what other people say about him. Maybe your criticism should be levelled at fan-boys who usually, by their very nature, take things too far into idol-worship?

And as for your point about his writing credits, it is far more likely that he had a heavy hand to play in the script development, therefore he was able to achieve a writing credit. Don't assume the worst!




elab49 -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 1:49:21 PM)

http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2651166&mpage=1&key=tarantino&NID=0#2652707

We already have a Tarantino thread for discussion if you ignore the randomly pointless 'vs' threads you'll find on search.

Howling Mad, we have rules on Homework on the site and, if you'll forgive me, those are pretty specific questions you're looking to be answered for a 'primary research' project on Tarantino. Feel free to use search and the existing threads to pull ideas if you don't have your own, otherwise please follow the homework rules and start a discussion, not something that looks like a cherry-picking run, please. As well as general discussions on him in here you'll probably find individual threads on the films in Reviews and Favourite Films. [:)]




rawlinson -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 1:58:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrewing1000

Yes I know it was Siegfried who made the stupid point (stupid because anyone who considers themselves a film fan, which I assume Siegfried is since he is posting on a film forum, would not limit themselves in such a way).



How on earth is it a stupid point? Siegfried clearly points out he's hated everything so far by Tarantino, why should someone keep watching films by a director whose work they clearly dislike?




MonsterCat -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (15/11/2012 4:07:10 PM)

Here's my two cents on QT, because I know y'all just itching to know what I think about him.

He started off well with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown is a really accomplished film. But the Kill Bill films and Grindhouse were the worst pieces of juvenile, masturbatory crap of the last ten years. They're less like actual films and more like excuses for Tarantino to indulge in his love for B-Movies and the sound of his own dialogue.

Ingloriuous Basterds had similar problems, but at least there were some interesting things in there. I'm not sold on anything I've seen of Django Unchained but we'll wait and see.




scarface666brooksy!! -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (16/11/2012 1:31:20 AM)

I went through a stage where I thought Tarantino's films were a gift from god and the greatest things of all time. But in the last two years or so, I've watched a lot of different films and re-watched most of Tarantino's and something occurred to me. I really had no idea. I still have a lot of time for his films, and his first three I would openly say I like them a lot, but the pedestal people have built for him is ridiculous. My education in cinema is still pretty small, and I wouldn't say I'm incredibly knowledgeable but I look back on what I used to think and my thought process is so incredibly different nowadays.




ElephantBoy -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (17/11/2012 3:12:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Here's my two cents on QT, because I know y'all just itching to know what I think about him.

He started off well with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown is a really accomplished film. But the Kill Bill films and Grindhouse were the worst pieces of juvenile, masturbatory crap of the last ten years. They're less like actual films and more like excuses for Tarantino to indulge in his love for B-Movies and the sound of his own dialogue.

Ingloriuous Basterds had similar problems, but at least there were some interesting things in there. I'm not sold on anything I've seen of Django Unchained but we'll wait and see.

Me too on most of that. Still have not seen IB.




siegfried -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (18/11/2012 12:54:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrewing1000

Yes I know it was Siegfried who made the stupid point (stupid because anyone who considers themselves a film fan, which I assume Siegfried is since he is posting on a film forum, would not limit themselves in such a way).



How on earth is it a stupid point? Siegfried clearly points out he's hated everything so far by Tarantino, why should someone keep watching films by a director whose work they clearly dislike?


Thanks for your support, Rawls. jr would appear to be one of those people who consider that everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it's the same as his.




rich -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (18/11/2012 1:13:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Here's my two cents on QT, because I know y'all just itching to know what I think about him.

He started off well with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown is a really accomplished film. But the Kill Bill films and Grindhouse were the worst pieces of juvenile, masturbatory crap of the last ten years. They're less like actual films and more like excuses for Tarantino to indulge in his love for B-Movies and the sound of his own dialogue.

Ingloriuous Basterds had similar problems, but at least there were some interesting things in there. I'm not sold on anything I've seen of Django Unchained but we'll wait and see.


I'd agree with a lot of this. The earlier films are mostly very good. But by moving from homage with say Resevoir Dogs into straight out pastiche like Kill Bill and what followed it's all gone to pieces. After Death Proof I have not returned to Tarantino and so never watched "Basterds".




MonsterCat -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (18/11/2012 1:49:12 AM)

Inglourious Basterds has its issues but its one of the best things he's done in quite sometime.

There are moments in there that remind you that Tarantino can still write and direct the fuck out of a scene, but for the most part it's an undisciplined and over-indulgent film.




Hood_Man -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (20/11/2012 5:42:16 PM)

I loved Reservoir Dogs, and aside from the Bruce Willis segment I enjoyed Pulp Fiction too.

I need to watch Jackie Brown again, but I recall sort of liking the bits I remember.

Kill Bill Volume 1 had some cool moments, but overall I just didn't care about the revenge story. I liked the story of Part 2 a lot more, but it drags like crazy too.

Inglourious Basterds was the best film of his since Reservoir Dogs IMHO, I really enjoyed it [:)]




Harry Tuttle -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (20/11/2012 6:01:36 PM)

My two cents

Great - Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown

Good - Kill Bill Vol 1

Alright - Inglourious Basterds, Kill Bill Vol 2

What in the name of fuck was that? - Death Proof




Scott_ -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (20/11/2012 6:37:30 PM)

I fucking love Death Proof! Between Kurt Russell being awesome and the cars (and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in a cheerleader outfit, obviously) Death Proof ends up being pretty cool. It's not his best film but it might be my favourite.

I don't think he's made a bad film, I find all of QTs work highly entertaining.




Powka -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (29/11/2012 12:37:28 AM)

Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown - great, GREAT films.
Kill Bill was good, definitely not great, but also not bad, as some people here said.

Tarantino knows how to write, and knows how to do it in his own, unique, style. Inglorious Basterds were just as great as some of his previous work, and it was well received too. Hans Landa was an amazing character, and the dialogue in the film grips attention like any other did in quite some time. Dialogues and pacing is one of the strongest assets of Mr. Tarantino.




Mars_Girl -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (18/2/2013 11:54:23 AM)

I think what is unique for his movies and what defines his style it that he (as was said before) derives from other movies and styles but he strips it of pathos and "swag" and use it "with tongue in cheek". He is not affraid of that and doesn't pretend it's ambitious when it's not.




rich -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (18/2/2013 5:38:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Here's my two cents on QT, because I know y'all just itching to know what I think about him.

He started off well with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown is a really accomplished film. But the Kill Bill films and Grindhouse were the worst pieces of juvenile, masturbatory crap of the last ten years. They're less like actual films and more like excuses for Tarantino to indulge in his love for B-Movies and the sound of his own dialogue.

Ingloriuous Basterds had similar problems, but at least there were some interesting things in there. I'm not sold on anything I've seen of Django Unchained but we'll wait and see.


I'd agree with a lot of this. The earlier films are mostly very good. But by moving from homage with say Resevoir Dogs into straight out pastiche like Kill Bill and what followed it's all gone to pieces. After Death Proof I have not returned to Tarantino and so never watched "Basterds".



Well since this post I saw it and was pleasantly surprised. A return to great characterisation, writing and vignette style dialogues. Not perfect, and I wonder how much would stand up without Christoph Waltz (what the hell is Mick Myers doing in this??) but you know, decent stuff.




Dr Lenera -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (18/2/2013 8:55:25 PM)

I would agree with you. I thought Tarantino rapidly went down hill after the brilliant Pulp Fiction and his last two films were awful. But Django Unchained was a pleasant surprise. The first one in ages that didn't feel like highlights from 100 really cool cult movies that Tarantino thinks you should see before you die. Some great dialogue, action and humour [the KKK scene was uproarious] though as you say Waltz, who was simply fantastic, added a huge amount. Samuel L. Jackson was outstanding too.




ElephantBoy -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (21/2/2013 6:52:50 PM)

Am being dragged along to it next week by a friend, we are taking adventge of Orange wednesdays so I won't actually have to pay for it.[;)]




Artoo -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (22/2/2013 5:00:19 PM)

I think Tarantino hasn't actually made a bad film ever! Death Proof is clearly his weakest film but it is still entertaining, well paced and ultimately empowering to women! (And yes, Mary Elizabeth Winstead in a Cherleaders outfit is a big plus too!)

The thing that I like about Tarantino's films is that it's very obvious that he just loves film! He loves watching films, making films and certainly based on all of his films since Kill Bill (which is my personal favourite) loves making homages to his favourite films/genres/directors. It is apparent that they are all labours of love and I can only respect that.

A few highlights to remind you (or just me) of just how good Tarantino's films are:

Resevoir Dogs - the notorious torture scene.

Pulp Fiction - Vincent Vega and Mia's date climaxing with the chest stabbing scene at Eric Stoltz's characters place.

Kill Bill - The story of Pai Mei

Inglorious Basterds - The opening scene with Hans Landa at the french farmhouse switching languages at the click of a finger.

There are more from my point of view but hopefully some of you get the point!




anbb13 -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (11/3/2013 5:07:44 PM)

Hi,
The absurdity of some dialogues are a touch of Tarantino's movies. Either you like, or you hate. There is no middle. He is genious and bad in the same time for me. Moreover all his movies have a message and show the absurdity of the world in different periods. His goal is to shock people, to be different from others.




ElephantBoy -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (12/3/2013 11:56:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anbb13

Hi,
The absurdity of some dialogues are a touch of Tarantino's movies. Either you like, or you hate. There is no middle. He is genious and bad in the same time for me. Moreover all his movies have a message and show the absurdity of the world in different periods. His goal is to shock people, to be different from others.

I don't think he has ever been a genious per say, its just that for a small spell in the 90s he carved out a certain neiche which seemed to be quite different from most main stream films at the time, but he was soon found out for being very limited.

Anyhow my latest ratings for his films:

Jackie Brown 10/10
Pulp Fiction 8/10
Resovoir Dogs 8/10
Django Unchained 6/10
Kill Bill Vol.1 5/10
Death Proof 3/10

Still need to see his other two. Out of interst how does KBVol 2 match up to the first part?




Discodez -> RE: Tarantino and his films? (12/3/2013 12:42:02 PM)

Keeping this quite brief, I wouldn't call myself a Tarantino fanboy (I only own Reservoir Dogs) but have throughly enjoyed all of his films, although I haven't seen Django Unchained yet and have never put myself through Four Rooms (as I point blank refuse to watch anything with Madonna in it), as I understand it's a total abortion of a movie which QT himself would like the world to forget all about as he clearly has.

Yes there's nothing original about his style and yes for the most part what he does is ape other directors but I still think he has a lot to offer a s a movie maker. I'd like to see him do a "Giallo" next, seeing as (heartbreakingly) Argento seems to have lost it these days.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875