Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> DVD Club >> RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 16/6/2006 11:48:03 AM   
Companero


Posts: 626
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: London Violenta, UK
quote:

ORIGINAL: matt_cub

I was utterly disappointed when I learnt one of his strongest and funniest speeches in a film (Sleep With Me) was written by none other than Roger Avery.


Neither Tarantino nor Avary can take any real credit for the Top Gun speech in Sleep With Me - much of the riff on the fim's homoerotic subtext was actually taken from a Pauline Kael article...

(in reply to matt_cub)
Post #: 31
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 16/6/2006 1:20:04 PM   
TheMadFatChickKiller


Posts: 319
Joined: 30/1/2006
He started off riding the zeitgeist with 2 amazing films and yes these are self-referential 'look-at-how-much-I-know-about-movies', but there's a great doco on the 2 disc Resevoir Dogs DVD where someone points out what the movie landscape was like in 1992 (in a word - pish). QT broke new ground and, like most individual directors, spawned many imitators. But there's the rub and explains why there has been something of a backlash against QT and his subsequent struggle to redefine his voice in cinema. QT distilled his love of genre films into 2 original pieces, Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. The studios thought that was the magic formula and so hired any old hack to do the same, but, without QT's natural ability with dialogue, or true passion for film, what we subsequently got was a synthesis of pop-culture gangster flicks. IMO the nadir of these was 'Kiss of Death' - look at the talent in that film - Nicolas Cage, David Caruso, Samuel L, writer Richard 'Fucking' Price, director Barbet Schroeder - then look at the film? A colossal waste of money and talent trying to replicate a formula only QT could master.
 
That said, QT is infinitely better as a screenwriter. I agree that 'True Romance' is his best, in fact Tony Scott must be contractually obliged only to direct QT's scripts to stop any more 'Dominos' getting made.
 
I admire 'Kill Bill' - it was a stupid decision on the part of the Weinsteins to insist on 2 films.
 
Lately, it seems QT is struggling to find his voice again. I think he needs to position himself as a latter day Robert Aldrich and forget any Truffaut-like pretensions. Go for the mean, gritty dramas with pithy dialogue and hard characters. Imagine a QT 'Longest Yard', 'Ulzanas Raid' or even 'Dirty Dozen' (in the Gulf??).

_____________________________

It's my way, or the highway...


(in reply to Companero)
Post #: 32
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 16/6/2006 2:33:02 PM   
Companero


Posts: 626
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: London Violenta, UK
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheMadFatChickKiller

 Imagine a QT 'Longest Yard', 'Ulzanas Raid' or even 'Dirty Dozen' (in the Gulf??).


Tarantino has been threatening to remake Enzo G Castellari's Inglorious Bastards for years - the original itself owes much to The Dirty Dozen. Good flick in its own right, though...
 
Kiss Of Death was a film severely lacking in any substance - then again, I can't think of one decent film Barbet Schroder made in the US anway...

(in reply to TheMadFatChickKiller)
Post #: 33
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 18/6/2006 2:07:37 PM   
punchdrunk


Posts: 7817
Joined: 14/12/2005
In Kill Bill, There are many similarities in the character of Bill to Tarantino himself,
He never knew his father.
He loves comic books.
He is an only child have a brother like Bud but Rodriegiez is damn close to a brother for him.
Was his earliest film expeience "the postman always rings twice"?

(in reply to Companero)
Post #: 34
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 19/6/2006 1:11:31 PM   
TheMadFatChickKiller


Posts: 319
Joined: 30/1/2006
I definitely prefer QT the director to QT the actor. He is without a doubt the worst thing about any film he has appeared in, including his own films. Although it is a bit of a giggle that he always gets bumped off in nasty ways in Robert Rodriguez' films 'Desperado' and 'From Dusk 'Til Dawn'.
 
His part in 'Pulp Fiction' is especially annoying - a whiny schmuck who badmouths his girlfriends choice in coffee.
 
Why he didn't pay more attention to his Acting Tutor, James 'Rosco P Coltrane' Best I, is a mystery.

_____________________________

It's my way, or the highway...


(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 35
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 25/6/2006 9:00:11 PM   
BobaJango


Posts: 7667
Joined: 31/12/2005
From: Mulder's basement
quote:

ORIGINAL: punchdrunk

In Kill Bill, There are many similarities in the character of Bill to Tarantino himself,
He never knew his father.
He loves comic books.
He is an only child have a brother like Bud but Rodriegiez is damn close to a brother for him.
Was his earliest film expeience "the postman always rings twice"?



Like Clarence in True Romance (which Tarantino wrote).



_____________________________

"Don't worry. Won't insult legendary underworld solidarity by suggesting you surrender name without torture". - Rorschach (Watchmen).

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 36
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 28/6/2006 12:49:25 PM   
punchdrunk


Posts: 7817
Joined: 14/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: BobaJango

quote:

ORIGINAL: punchdrunk

In Kill Bill, There are many similarities in the character of Bill to Tarantino himself,

Like Clarence in True Romance (which Tarantino wrote).


Is that the way he met his wife, ex-call-girl?  i really hope so. (Regards to Mrs T)

The movies a fan boys dream, the world revolves around Clarence in that movie, maybe Tarantino thought that if people would just give him a chance he would be cool like Clarence...and want to F*ck Elvis... WTF! (worst pickup act ever!)      

(in reply to BobaJango)
Post #: 37
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 6/7/2006 9:13:15 PM   
punchdrunk


Posts: 7817
Joined: 14/12/2005
The Superman monologue made by Bill, dosent make sense why would Clark Critique human man when he was raised by and loves the human family? ok so the end of it makes sense, Beatrix would have found it hard to fit in as a normal person, but so do ex-presidents.

The beeping out of her name brought me straight out of the first movie what was the point of that? if it was a reference, it was a reference worth leaving out.    

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 38
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 6/7/2006 10:01:47 PM   
Dirty Hartigan


Posts: 5890
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Manchester
It was just a stylistic quirk, I thought it was pretty cool myself.

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 39
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 7/7/2006 8:36:21 AM   
stuartbannerman


Posts: 1088
Joined: 30/9/2005
it was just Quentin being a smart arse again

_____________________________

www.stuartbannerman.co.uk

http://www.intervocative.com/dvdcollection.aspx/stuartbannerman

(in reply to Dirty Hartigan)
Post #: 40
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 7/7/2006 10:21:08 AM   
lympo


Posts: 1899
Joined: 24/12/2005
Well, that's what makes his movies to contraversial! He is a human form of Marmite, and I just so happen to love himj. And Marmnnite. No hate mail please.

_____________________________

If you read this,you are stupid.

(in reply to stuartbannerman)
Post #: 41
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 10/7/2006 6:07:16 PM   
punchdrunk


Posts: 7817
Joined: 14/12/2005
Many times a character will discuss a situation,like a battle adding all the tiny details spreading these elaborate ideas of whats to come, before going in a different direction...but in our imaginations the fight still exists. 

(in reply to lympo)
Post #: 42
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 19/11/2006 7:36:43 PM   
punchdrunk


Posts: 7817
Joined: 14/12/2005
What's the name of the song which plays when "the Bride" is rolling around on the floor with two swords cutting off the legs of the crazy 88's "Nobody Aint nobody" ect it's a great song but it isnt on the soundtrack, any help???? 

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 43
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 7/12/2006 1:29:50 PM   
punchdrunk


Posts: 7817
Joined: 14/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: punchdrunk

What's the name of the song which plays when "the Bride" is rolling around on the floor with two swords cutting off the legs of the crazy 88's "Nobody Aint nobody" ect it's a great song but it isnt on the soundtrack, any help???? 

...never mind i scanned through the credits.
The song was "Nobody But Me" by 'The Human Beinz'

Great tune.

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 44
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 31/12/2006 10:07:58 PM   
big_al


Posts: 68
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Future
does anyone know when the kill bill1 & 2 dvd uncut edition is going to come out   it seems to be taking a very long time

Death Proof looks fantastic though


_____________________________

Censorship KILL'S freedom of expression!
Censorship is EVIL!

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 45
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 5/1/2007 3:46:10 PM   
filmburner30

 

Posts: 1554
Joined: 5/12/2006
From: guildford
i quite like Tarantino films but my favourite is the most neglected one Jackie Brown.
It shows that QT could become a mature and sensible film maker instead of endlessly riffing on b movie heaven.
Both Robert Forster and Pam Grier give fantastic performances the supporting cast is fantastic and the script is the best thing QT ever did.
Maybe when all the hype dies away on his other more celebrated work people will see the film for the gem it really is

_____________________________

"Where are you calling from Milo?"
"The bottom of the pool?"

"Im The Anti Christ.You got me in a Vendetta kind of mood"

"Come back Alan , You Wanker!"

"Your a Doctor,Deal with it"

(in reply to big_al)
Post #: 46
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 6/1/2007 3:33:00 PM   
big_al


Posts: 68
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Future
Kill Bill is on telly tommorow

< Message edited by big_al -- 6/1/2007 3:47:34 PM >


_____________________________

Censorship KILL'S freedom of expression!
Censorship is EVIL!

(in reply to filmburner30)
Post #: 47
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 10/1/2007 7:12:38 PM   
Casserine


Posts: 72
Joined: 6/1/2006
Okay, I have a question. While watching Kill Bill 1 on BBC2 last Sunday for the first time, I thought I caught a quick reference to Ikiru. Uma Thurman has just killed Lucy Liu's character and sits down on a bench to catch her breath, snow falling around her. However, I haven't come across this mentioned anywhere online and was wondering whether it's just me imagining things that aren't actually there! Any answers?

_____________________________

[URL]http://catherine-mixedupfiles.blogspot.com/[/URL]
Post #: 48
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 30/1/2007 6:14:39 PM   
Paul Cook


Posts: 9
Joined: 20/7/2006
From: Suffolk, UK
Tarantino is clearly a talented writer and director but as of yet he hasn't created a full enough body of work to be considered a Truly Great Director. He has barely 10 films to his name and they are nearly all in the exact same genre. Someone like Spielberg has covered loads of genres and made so many brilliant films. For Tarantino to be placed above directors like Sergio Leone whose films are considered to be masterpieces is an insult to the directors below him.

On our school Media Studies class room wall is a laminated copy of the Empire top 50 directors. Every lesson I sit there thinking, Jackson is too high up the board, as is Tarantino and directors like Leone and Ford should be above them! Change this please! I want to see in 2007 a new top director's list in print in Empire that is voted for by readers.

Post #: 49
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 31/1/2007 8:00:38 PM   
umer_ejaz

 

Posts: 1271
Joined: 9/12/2005
Out of the ones that Dan has mentioned Quentin has really created any masterpieces at all, he does however create blood baths which are damn right brilliant, but i'm more interested in is upcoming collaboration with Robert Rodriguez, on Grindhouse.

_____________________________

#9 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.

(in reply to Dan Jolin)
Post #: 50
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 5/2/2007 1:40:55 PM   
claytonmeister


Posts: 373
Joined: 13/10/2006
From: Nabootique, London
your comments about jackie brown ring true in my ears, great movie. Shame it gets slated all the time.

_____________________________

"My father died when he was making love to a 20 year old. He came and went at the same time!" Richard Pryor

"You mean I'm black does dad know!?"
Post #: 51
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 12/2/2007 10:44:52 PM   
tokyosexwhale

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 6/2/2007
I loved Reservoir, Pulp, Jackie...loved them, loved the script for True Romance but with Kill Bill I'm really hoping Tarantino isn't disappearing up his own arsehole. 

(in reply to claytonmeister)
Post #: 52
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 15/2/2007 1:18:29 PM   
adamdavidsmith


Posts: 2558
Joined: 1/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: tokyosexwhale

I loved Reservoir, Pulp, Jackie...loved them, loved the script for True Romance but with Kill Bill I'm really hoping Tarantino isn't disappearing up his own arsehole. 


Kill Bill is good, great direction and cinematography. The only thing I dislike/don't agree with is the amount of deaths/murders with no motif. i.e taking someones eye out for calling you a fool, or murdering like a dozen people because your wife has left you. F**k  that shit, a little more realism and it coulda been better. The first is better than the second. As for Pulp Fiction: pretty much the best film of the 90's.

(in reply to tokyosexwhale)
Post #: 53
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 16/2/2007 10:38:38 PM   
westsider

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/12/2006


I've never liked Tarantino. I hated Reservoir Dogs and I hated Pulp Fiction even more. The only film of his I have any time for is Jackie Brown, and most of that is down to Elmore Leonard. But I have to admit that he had something. There had never been films like his before. No matter how much his snickering nihilism got on my nerves even I could see that his attitude and style were new and vital. He may have stolen ideas, but the ideas that mattered were all his own. I didn't hate his work because it was stupid or incompetent, I hated it because I thought it was hateful, which is a different matter entirely. So Tarantino is talented, but Tarantino stinks. Why? Because I don't give a damn about Madonna or the Partridge Family. Because I don't care what they call a quarter-pounder in Paris. Because I don't want to see a torture scene with a punch-line. Because I hate homophobia. Because I hate kung-fu movies. Because I hate Bruce Willis. Because my heart belongs to the art house not the grind house. For all these reasons and many more Tarantino will never be the director for me, and the suggestion that he is the leading talent of his generation will always make me feel like screaming with frustration. People like him, of course, but people like all sorts of rubbish, and Tarantino's films irritate me so much they make my head hurt.

Right, so that's the (very, very) grudging respect out of the way. Now let's get down to business.

Tarantino is finished. His talent is shallow and limited, and we've seen the best of him already. If he'd stuck to what he's good at he might've made it last a while longer. But he didn't. He did nothing for seven years and then made Kill Bill, and the game was up.

Jackie Brown is the key to this. It was Tarantino's bid for maturity. A film with a real story and characters that belonged to the human race. It asked things of Tarantino, and he was equal to the challenge. It's not a perfect film, but it has a lot going for it. Leonard and Tarantino don't entirely mesh, but he brought things to the project it would never have had in other hands. He has a talent for casting and a talent for music, and his choices were spot on. The film's set pieces were executed with confidence. Its mood was well-judged and consistent. It worked. And it flopped.

Not entirely. I doubt if it lost money. But the signs were clear. What if he went on making films like this? What would it mean for him? Easy to see. The surrender of his enfant terrible status, for starters, but worse besides. Jackie Brown is his fans' least favourite film. Carry on in the same vein and there may not be many fans left. Tarantino commands a special place in the hearts of a generation of film goers. He is their main man, the man whose work defines their taste. And they are prepared to follow his lead, but they won't follow him anywhere, and maturity looked like a step too far.

So what did Tarantino do? Nothing for a long time. And then he bottled it. He regressed. He turned tail and headed back to his video store days. And he made Kill Bill. It was new. It was different. And it was a hit. It pleased his existing fans and made him new ones. And it ruined his reputation for ever. Kill Bill is not just a misstep, it is a career-ruining foul up of unprecedented proportions. A film that exposes its director's limitations so plainly that you can only feel embarrassed for him. If it had flopped he might have survived. But it was a success and it will be the end of him. Before Kill Bill no one seriously interested in film could afford to miss a Tarantino film, after Kill Bill it is hard to see why they would bother.


When Tarantino first appeared American film was in bad shape. The 80s had been dire, and the independent scene was only just beginning to matter. He was streets ahead of the competition, and everyone could see it. How things change. Between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill a new wave of film-makers emerged: Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Jonze, Todd Solondz, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Michel Gondry, Todd Haynes and a reinvigorated Steven Soderbergh. The independent scene was vibrant and it had crossed over and changed the mainstream too. The bar had been raised. And what was Tarantino's response? He gave us a kung-fu cross between Charlie's Angels and I Spit on Your Grave. He spent millions paying homage to long forgotten low-budget quickies, and failed to match even the very limited quality of his sources. He spent two films and over three hours telling us a dull and silly story, and needed endless voice over exposition to do it. He crafted an unintentionally absurd action climax and proved once and for all that he was not an action director. And he left his actors exposed and ridiculous, standing around reciting stagey speeches at each other. Kill Bill was dreadful, and Kill Bill was Tarantino's new direction.

So Tarantino screwed up and he made millions. A disaster is hard to recover from, but a disaster that makes money is worse still. Audiences liked Kill Bill, but then audiences liked Scary Movie and Hostel. There is always money to be made fulfilling low expectations.

Which brings us to where Tarantino stands now. His talent for film-making may have been painfully exposed, but his genius for promotion remains undiminished. His new direction has a name and the name is grindhouse. A concept that no one gave a damn about until Tarantino started to enthuse as only he can. Clearly he is still a leader, but is he worth following? His next film is another grind house project, called Grindhouse, made in tandem with his less talented friend Robert Rodriguez. Two complete movies and four hours, once again paying homage to the cheapo exploitation racket of the distant past. Why? Because the last thing Tarantino wants to be is just another film-maker. He doesn't want to negotiate with the mainstream, he wants to bypass it. Another Jackie Brown was too much of a risk. Pledging himself to the outlaw film-makers of the past keeps respectability at bay. It maintains his outsider status. Except of course it doesn't. He is not a no-name shock-jockey making sleazy flea-pit fodder on a wing and a prayer. He is the most famous director of his generation and he is spending millions. His films will have star packed premieres and two disc special editions. So what is he now? What has he turned himself into? Clear your mind for a minute and put aside his auteur reputation. Think about the business and the money, and it's easy to see. Tarantino is a maker of niche-product. He knows his audience and he knows how to press their buttons. And he is working them every bit as thoroughly as the makers of The Princess Diaries and High School: the Musical work their target market.

You can make a fortune like this. Maybe for a while anyway. But you can't make great films.


< Message edited by westsider -- 16/2/2007 11:52:27 PM >

(in reply to Dan Jolin)
Post #: 54
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 18/2/2007 3:16:42 AM   
blackadder89


Posts: 12
Joined: 2/5/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikej888

His one limitation, in my view, is an inability to create characters you actually give a damn about.



Despite his relative lack of on-screen time, I really felt for Budd in Kill Bill Vol.II. Don't know what it was, maybe because I have a brother, but the the way he had been hurt just made me sympathetic...meh...

_____________________________

"Fear not, for I am watchful"
Post #: 55
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 18/2/2007 8:48:12 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: westsider



I've never liked Tarantino. I hated Reservoir Dogs and I hated Pulp Fiction even more. The only film of his I have any time for is Jackie Brown, and most of that is down to Elmore Leonard. But I have to admit that he had something. There had never been films like his before. No matter how much his snickering nihilism got on my nerves even I could see that his attitude and style were new and vital. He may have stolen ideas, but the ideas that mattered were all his own. I didn't hate his work because it was stupid or incompetent, I hated it because I thought it was hateful, which is a different matter entirely. So Tarantino is talented, but Tarantino stinks. Why? Because I don't give a damn about Madonna or the Partridge Family. Because I don't care what they call a quarter-pounder in Paris. Because I don't want to see a torture scene with a punch-line. Because I hate homophobia. Because I hate kung-fu movies. Because I hate Bruce Willis. Because my heart belongs to the art house not the grind house. For all these reasons and many more Tarantino will never be the director for me, and the suggestion that he is the leading talent of his generation will always make me feel like screaming with frustration. People like him, of course, but people like all sorts of rubbish, and Tarantino's films irritate me so much they make my head hurt.

Right, so that's the (very, very) grudging respect out of the way. Now let's get down to business.

Tarantino is finished. His talent is shallow and limited, and we've seen the best of him already. If he'd stuck to what he's good at he might've made it last a while longer. But he didn't. He did nothing for seven years and then made Kill Bill, and the game was up.

Jackie Brown is the key to this. It was Tarantino's bid for maturity. A film with a real story and characters that belonged to the human race. It asked things of Tarantino, and he was equal to the challenge. It's not a perfect film, but it has a lot going for it. Leonard and Tarantino don't entirely mesh, but he brought things to the project it would never have had in other hands. He has a talent for casting and a talent for music, and his choices were spot on. The film's set pieces were executed with confidence. Its mood was well-judged and consistent. It worked. And it flopped.

Not entirely. I doubt if it lost money. But the signs were clear. What if he went on making films like this? What would it mean for him? Easy to see. The surrender of his enfant terrible status, for starters, but worse besides. Jackie Brown is his fans' least favourite film. Carry on in the same vein and there may not be many fans left. Tarantino commands a special place in the hearts of a generation of film goers. He is their main man, the man whose work defines their taste. And they are prepared to follow his lead, but they won't follow him anywhere, and maturity looked like a step too far.

So what did Tarantino do? Nothing for a long time. And then he bottled it. He regressed. He turned tail and headed back to his video store days. And he made Kill Bill. It was new. It was different. And it was a hit. It pleased his existing fans and made him new ones. And it ruined his reputation for ever. Kill Bill is not just a misstep, it is a career-ruining foul up of unprecedented proportions. A film that exposes its director's limitations so plainly that you can only feel embarrassed for him. If it had flopped he might have survived. But it was a success and it will be the end of him. Before Kill Bill no one seriously interested in film could afford to miss a Tarantino film, after Kill Bill it is hard to see why they would bother.


When Tarantino first appeared American film was in bad shape. The 80s had been dire, and the independent scene was only just beginning to matter. He was streets ahead of the competition, and everyone could see it. How things change. Between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill a new wave of film-makers emerged: Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Jonze, Todd Solondz, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Michel Gondry, Todd Haynes and a reinvigorated Steven Soderbergh. The independent scene was vibrant and it had crossed over and changed the mainstream too. The bar had been raised. And what was Tarantino's response? He gave us a kung-fu cross between Charlie's Angels and I Spit on Your Grave. He spent millions paying homage to long forgotten low-budget quickies, and failed to match even the very limited quality of his sources. He spent two films and over three hours telling us a dull and silly story, and needed endless voice over exposition to do it. He crafted an unintentionally absurd action climax and proved once and for all that he was not an action director. And he left his actors exposed and ridiculous, standing around reciting stagey speeches at each other. Kill Bill was dreadful, and Kill Bill was Tarantino's new direction.

So Tarantino screwed up and he made millions. A disaster is hard to recover from, but a disaster that makes money is worse still. Audiences liked Kill Bill, but then audiences liked Scary Movie and Hostel. There is always money to be made fulfilling low expectations.

Which brings us to where Tarantino stands now. His talent for film-making may have been painfully exposed, but his genius for promotion remains undiminished. His new direction has a name and the name is grindhouse. A concept that no one gave a damn about until Tarantino started to enthuse as only he can. Clearly he is still a leader, but is he worth following? His next film is another grind house project, called Grindhouse, made in tandem with his less talented friend Robert Rodriguez. Two complete movies and four hours, once again paying homage to the cheapo exploitation racket of the distant past. Why? Because the last thing Tarantino wants to be is just another film-maker. He doesn't want to negotiate with the mainstream, he wants to bypass it. Another Jackie Brown was too much of a risk. Pledging himself to the outlaw film-makers of the past keeps respectability at bay. It maintains his outsider status. Except of course it doesn't. He is not a no-name shock-jockey making sleazy flea-pit fodder on a wing and a prayer. He is the most famous director of his generation and he is spending millions. His films will have star packed premieres and two disc special editions. So what is he now? What has he turned himself into? Clear your mind for a minute and put aside his auteur reputation. Think about the business and the money, and it's easy to see. Tarantino is a maker of niche-product. He knows his audience and he knows how to press their buttons. And he is working them every bit as thoroughly as the makers of The Princess Diaries and High School: the Musical work their target market.

You can make a fortune like this. Maybe for a while anyway. But you can't make great films.



I have to say, that as much as I dislike the unthinking praise given to Tarantino from fanboys, your post is incredibly wrong, and rather a snide rant at a film-maker who has made some very entertaining films.
You talk about not caring about Madonna or Quarter Pounders, but the whole point is the banality of the subjects. By talking about normal things in a humourous way, the transitions to violence are all the more shocking. Not only that, but the seemingly rambling dialogue tells us a lot about the characters in minimal time. In Reservoir Dogs, the cafe sequence tells us all we need to know about the protaginists. Blonde is cocky and cool, Pink is a snivelling weasel who wont tip, Brown is taking the piss and is taking nothing seriously..etc This is character driven dialogue, as well as brilliant, hard-boiled poetry that Chandler, Hammett or Leonard would be proud of.
I really dont see how Tarantinos work is hateful either, Id like some examples of that. As for nihilism, in Pulp Fiction Butch and his girlfriend flee for a better life, Jules is redeemed and his life is saved, Mia survives a near death experienced, and the only people who die are those who deserve it. If anything the film is about the power of redemption. Reservoir Dogs is rather nihilistic, but its not neccessarily a bad thing, see Rififi or Le Cercle Rouge for other heist-gone-wrong films with nihilistic endings.
You then say his talent his shallow and limited, a statement which is negated by the mention of Jackie Brown, Tarantinos most mature movie, and one which has characters that we can truely relate to and empathise with. How much of a risk must it had been for him, after two heavily violent and stylised films, to take on a film which is essentially about two middle-aged people falling in love. Having a go at his fans for not liking the film has nothing to do with it, the fact is that Tarantino made a cracking film. Who can tell if he takes more risks like this?
Kill Bill was admittedly an overstylised mess, but it is still exceptional entertainment and has some excellent fight scenes in. Who cares if you dont like kung-fu movies, other people do, and its a valid genre as anything else. How utterly pretentious of you to dismiss it in a sentence and dismiss Tarantinos movies because of it.
Yes Grindhouse worries me, and yes I fear that he got caught up in his own hype, but you forget his next project is his war epic, Inglorious Bastards. Hardly a move youd expect from a director looking for niche-placements, and one which will hopefully prove his worth as a great director and writer.




_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to westsider)
Post #: 56
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 19/2/2007 6:04:52 PM   
amateur ghostbuster

 

Posts: 862
Joined: 8/12/2006
Well TheManWithNoShame has summarised all the main points of what needed to be said, coincedently making westsider look like a pretentious twat. Fair to say I have a few things I'd like to add, before going back to the monotony of revision.
I neither hate nor love Quentin Tarantino, but he has produced two of the best films of recent years; Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, I find his relationship with Robert Rodriguez frustrating as he is clearly a far more talented filmmaker and finally he has lost himself in the mirth of his own fame, playing on his geek status to make "homages" to slasher flicks and kung-fu movies when he should be continuing to make highly original, fascinating films a la Pulp Fiction. There that is done and said.
However.....
By attacking the point of Tarantino's characters aimless rambling's, you've shown your lack of knowledge of the subject. As TMWNS has mentioned they further character without maybe furthering plot, which is precisely the point of the excersise. Tarantino wanted to show the banality of what these guys really talk about, deglamorizing them and making them seem more human. Where other directors often simply use characters dialogue to move the narrative along, Tarantino does the opposite and we appreciate his characters because of it.
Also by stating that nihilism is a problem in Pulp Fiction, again shows you're lack of knowledge on the subject. The main theme of the film and what raises it above similary made movies, is redemption. Normal stories of Pulp Fiction, lead characters down a path of destruction, almost always ending badly. Tarantino turns this around and leads his characters out of their living hell's, but first they must show redemption, those who don't are killed off, for instance Vincent Vega.
I do worry about where Tarantino is now, I cant say I'm that impressed by Grindhouse but the jury is out until I've seen Inglorious Bastards.

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 57
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 19/2/2007 6:44:16 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: amateur ghostbuster

Well TheManWithNoShame has summarised all the main points of what needed to be said, coincedently making westsider look like a pretentious twat. Fair to say I have a few things I'd like to add, before going back to the monotony of revision.
I neither hate nor love Quentin Tarantino, but he has produced two of the best films of recent years; Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, I find his relationship with Robert Rodriguez frustrating as he is clearly a far more talented filmmaker and finally he has lost himself in the mirth of his own fame, playing on his geek status to make "homages" to slasher flicks and kung-fu movies when he should be continuing to make highly original, fascinating films a la Pulp Fiction. There that is done and said.
However.....
By attacking the point of Tarantino's characters aimless rambling's, you've shown your lack of knowledge of the subject. As TMWNS has mentioned they further character without maybe furthering plot, which is precisely the point of the excersise. Tarantino wanted to show the banality of what these guys really talk about, deglamorizing them and making them seem more human. Where other directors often simply use characters dialogue to move the narrative along, Tarantino does the opposite and we appreciate his characters because of it.
Also by stating that nihilism is a problem in Pulp Fiction, again shows you're lack of knowledge on the subject. The main theme of the film and what raises it above similary made movies, is redemption. Normal stories of Pulp Fiction, lead characters down a path of destruction, almost always ending badly. Tarantino turns this around and leads his characters out of their living hell's, but first they must show redemption, those who don't are killed off, for instance Vincent Vega.
I do worry about where Tarantino is now, I cant say I'm that impressed by Grindhouse but the jury is out until I've seen Inglorious Bastards.


Well said Mr Ghostbuster. I do wish Tarantino would stop pissing around with Rodriguez and get back to making original, groundbreaking and bold movies and stop with the homages to grindhouse and the like. Anyway, I see it like this. Tarantino has made 4 movies (Im counting Kill Bill as one project), and three of them are excellent, and have influenced an entire generation of film-makers. One of those three is an absolute masterpiece. Now he is nowhere near the worlds greatest director, but he is also nowhere near a hack either, and it is ridiculous to suggest so.

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to amateur ghostbuster)
Post #: 58
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 20/2/2007 1:00:22 AM   
westsider

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/12/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame

I have to say, that as much as I dislike the unthinking praise given to Tarantino from fanboys, your post is incredibly wrong, and rather a snide rant at a film-maker who has made some very entertaining films.
You talk about not caring about Madonna or Quarter Pounders, but the whole point is the banality of the subjects. By talking about normal things in a humourous way, the transitions to violence are all the more shocking. Not only that, but the seemingly rambling dialogue tells us a lot about the characters in minimal time. In Reservoir Dogs, the cafe sequence tells us all we need to know about the protaginists. Blonde is cocky and cool, Pink is a snivelling weasel who wont tip, Brown is taking the piss and is taking nothing seriously..etc This is character driven dialogue, as well as brilliant, hard-boiled poetry that Chandler, Hammett or Leonard would be proud of.
I really dont see how Tarantinos work is hateful either, Id like some examples of that. As for nihilism, in Pulp Fiction Butch and his girlfriend flee for a better life, Jules is redeemed and his life is saved, Mia survives a near death experienced, and the only people who die are those who deserve it. If anything the film is about the power of redemption. Reservoir Dogs is rather nihilistic, but its not neccessarily a bad thing, see Rififi or Le Cercle Rouge for other heist-gone-wrong films with nihilistic endings.
You then say his talent his shallow and limited, a statement which is negated by the mention of Jackie Brown, Tarantinos most mature movie, and one which has characters that we can truely relate to and empathise with. How much of a risk must it had been for him, after two heavily violent and stylised films, to take on a film which is essentially about two middle-aged people falling in love. Having a go at his fans for not liking the film has nothing to do with it, the fact is that Tarantino made a cracking film. Who can tell if he takes more risks like this?
Kill Bill was admittedly an overstylised mess, but it is still exceptional entertainment and has some excellent fight scenes in. Who cares if you dont like kung-fu movies, other people do, and its a valid genre as anything else. How utterly pretentious of you to dismiss it in a sentence and dismiss Tarantinos movies because of it.
Yes Grindhouse worries me, and yes I fear that he got caught up in his own hype, but you forget his next project is his war epic, Inglorious Bastards. Hardly a move youd expect from a director looking for niche-placements, and one which will hopefully prove his worth as a great director and writer.



"Snide” and "pretentious”, oh dear; but, at the risk of compounding my offence, I'd like to say a few things:

Reservoir Dogs made a huge impact on its release and it's easy to see why. It was new and bold and shocking, no doubt, and it was the work of an original talent who was impossible to ignore. But that doesn't mean that it's a good film. Tarantino's dialogue was impressive, at times, and the scene you mention is one of his best, but his approach has its limitations, and those limitations are more significant than his admirers are prepared to concede. You suggest that his focus on banality was a new way of illuminating character. Well, maybe so, but it only works within a narrow range. Essentially all the characters must be on the same wavelength. They must all be Tarantino guys. So Pink is a "snivelling weasel”, sure enough: he's the snivelling weasel Tarantino guy. And Blonde is the "cocky and cool” Tarantino guy. And so on with the others. This is not "character driven dialogue”, it's dialogue driven character. His characters never really break free of their writer: they remain too closely tethered to his personality. Fine for your first film, perhaps, but you can't go on like that for ever. And that is why Jackie Brown was important. It showed Tarantino developing his talent, with a little help from Elmore Leonard. But Tarantino has now turned his back on that, and returned with a vengeance to the film-geek enthusiasms of his youth. I believe that this amounts to a failure of nerve, and that his career will suffer irreparably as a result.

I called Tarantino's work hateful, and I'm tempted to cite the whole of his first film as evidence. However, the torture scene on its own should be evidence enough. Its impact was enormous. It's genuinely shocking, and genuinely hard to watch. And it's unforgivable. Not because of the violence itself, but because of the way it's presented. A torture scene that's part musical number, part comedy routine is certainly bold. It shows Tarantino at his most original. It also shows him at his worst. How so? Because the skill and daring involved don't excuse the hollowness and glibness of the exercise. You could call it black comedy, but that would just be making polite excuses. The humour here is cruel, and it's a cruelty that sniggers at sadism. Tarantino's approach isn't just pitiless, it holds pity in contempt.

Pulp Fiction is not so rancid, but it is long and often tedious. It's sometimes amusing, sure enough, and the Vincent and Jules banter has a certain slick wit, but it's all so shallow, and so hard to care about. In its defence you trot out the old critical warhorse "redemption”. Well OK, redemption then. Perhaps Butch is redeemed, from something or other, but Butch is a dull character, so it hardly matters. And even if we switch our focus to the more interesting Jules, things don't get any better. Jules has a road-to-Damascus conversion, revealed at the end of the film. He'll abandon his wicked ways, and "walk the earth” like Kung Fu. It provides an ending, and some of the film's wittier dialogue, but you can't take it seriously. There's no depth to the character, so who cares?

Pulp Fiction projects a superficial cool, and it has great music. But it has just a few good scenes, and it goes on for two and a half hours. That may be your idea of a classic, but it won't do for me.

Jackie Brown was different, and it seemed like a transitional film. It was as if Tarantino was trying out another writer's characters in preparation for a change in his own. Well, maybe he was, but it never happened. Instead we got Kill Bill. Oh well.


Admittedly the critics loved Kill Bill. It's one of the best reviewed films of recent years. But the critics aren't always right, and there are signs that its reputation is dipping already. The decision to follow it with Grindhouse may speed up the process. For me watching Kill Bill was an alienating experience. I couldn't sustain any interest in the film, even on the most basic level. It was a boy's-bedroom-wall-poster movie, cursed with a truly cloying geekiness, and it was almost unwatchable. I'd happily paid to see Tarantino's previous films, despite my reservations, because I believed that he mattered and I needed to see what he was doing. Kill Bill put a stop to that. If that was what he was up to then I could safely leave him to his admirers. So Grindhouse will be the first Tarantino film that I don't see. I suspect that it will be for others too; especially those old enough to have seen Reservoir Dogs on its first release.

(Incidentally, I haven't seen Rififi, but I watched Le Cercle Rouge recently, and I can only say that I think you're mistaking fatalism for nihilism.)


< Message edited by westsider -- 24/2/2007 5:33:11 PM >

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 59
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 20/2/2007 1:30:44 AM   
westsider

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/12/2006

I’ve been looking at reviews of Kill Bill, trying to find some support for my opinions, but it’s proved quite difficult. Both films were better reviewed than I remembered.

However, I did manage to find two dissenting voices. Both come from the same source: an article published in The Guardian in 2004, in which a number of writers, critics and film-makers were asked to name the film they hate most:

The first is Nick Broomfield the documentary film-maker, and director of the recently released Ghosts:

“This will earn me some enemies but I’d have to say Kill Bill - Volumes I and II. It’s like watching a schoolboy’s fantasy of violence and sex, which normally Quentin Tarantino would be wanking to alone in the confines of his bedroom while his mother is making his baked beans downstairs. Only this time we’ve got Harvey Weinstein behind him and it’s on at a million screens. That’s why I think all those prepubescent film critics loved Kill Bill so much. It’s acting out all their fantasies. I think Tarantino is very confused in his mixing of sex and violence. On that level he just feels like a young guy whose been let loose in the candy store, and there’s suddenly all these violent bitches around that he can put in his movies, and have a lot of fun with. As they say in the business, Kill Bill never should have left the lab.”

The second in the novelist J. G. Ballard, author of Empire of the Sun and Crash:

“Kill Bill Volume I, which I rented the other day, is dreadful. It was scarcely a film at all - just a lot of cinematic posing by Tarantino, who has obviously completely run out of ideas. It’s just a compendium of film cliches, which weren’t wittily transposed or played upon. Dreadful. It’s appalling to think there’s a Volume II, and even conceivably a III and a IV somewhere in the echo chamber of Tarantino’s imagination. It’s a fast-forward experience if you want to save your sanity. I’ve got 60 years of film-going under my belt, and Kill Bill I is definitely on the all-time bad list.”

Kill Bill was the only film chosen twice.

(in reply to punchdrunk)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> DVD Club >> RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.563