Quentin Tarantino fans

Inglourious Basterds’s characters might be “hollow”, but I think it’s Tarantino most substantial film since a long time.

I can agree with that. I thought the set up of Shoshanna was a bit forced, but for me, enjoyment of the film hinged on my fascination with Christophe Waltz’s character. This is one of those cases where I think the actor significantly added to the role through his performance; I’m not sure that if another had been cast if they would have stepped up the way Waltz did. But again, the reason that character stands out to me is because he is complex in a cast of caricatures.

[quote=“Cat Stevens, post:180, topic:613”]I’ve felt that the more he’s celebrated, the more Tarantino emphasizes style over substance to his (and filmgoers’) detriment. Inglorious Basterds, Kill Bill, and to some extent Pulp Fiction are essentially live-action cartoons. There aren’t many characters in these who are real and appealing. When I choose to watch these movies, I know I’m watching spectacle and spectacle alone. It’s why scenes like the end of Kill Bill 2 don’t hold together for me. You can’t try to end on a character moment when, up to that point, there wasn’t really a character.

I can name the reason why Jackie Brown is my favorite Tarantino film in two words: Robert Forster (actually, those aren’t words, really). He’s a deep, human character in whom I as a viewer can invest. His relationship with Jackie makes that movie for me.[/quote]

A well written post. I agree, I think that is it. I do like Tarantino’s earlier films more than his later ones so I think it may be that they became more and more about “style over substance”. I did notice that ‘Kill Bill’ was a bit of a cartoon to be honest… especially the first one. Out of the two I probably prefered the second even if it stil lwasn’t my bag so to speak.

I may have to hunt down ‘Jackie Brown’ again as I remember liking it… and I do like Pam Grier after all.

I love Jackie Brown. But among all this movies, it’s the one based on someone else’s novel :wink:

I get repetitive, but I have to reemphasize that I have the feeling that 80% of the people critizising QT, don’t get him. They think his “newer” stuff is somewhat different from his early work, while it really isn’t any different. It’s just that the genres he dabbled in in his early career have a realer touch than some of his newer work, which is more phantastic, comiquesque or whatever you want to call it, hyperreferential, god knows what.

Jackie Brown is the odd one out of the pack. But he might’ve just as well made Kill Bill first, or right after Reservoir Dogs…

Point taken, although it’s only one of three or four Elmore Leonard adaptations that I enjoy (Out of Sight, blah. Get Shorty, double blah), and I think it’s by far the best of the bunch.

I think this is one of the issues that I have with him though. Genre shouldn’t define depth. I am willing to take him at face value, and I always enjoy his films for the most part (Death Proof stands out for me as the one “eh” film amongst his many). But he’s shown capacity for greater depth with his characters in True Romance, Jackie Brown, and even in Reservoir Dogs. The conclusion of RD is a Tarantinoesque cool moment, but it’s also a very human moment full of emotion: anger, fear, guilt, betrayal.

Just because you have the stylistic spectacle doesn’t mean you can’t also have characters who go beyond the two-dimensional. Of all the scenes in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, for instance, my favorite is Tuco confronting his brother at the mission. That scene gives us an understanding of Wallach’s character as a human being, and not just as a loud-mouthed bandit caricature. I long for those sorts of moments, these sorts of characters in Tarantino films, is all I’m saying. The scenes where he tries to do this in recent films come off to me as inorganic, as if tacked on at the end (Kill Bill), or manufactured (Inglorious Basterds).

I’ve had this debate with Tarantino fans in the past, and I know there’s no way either side can win, because it’s a subjective point. I want something more from Tarantino’s films than he is willing to provide, and you (the general “you,” not just Sebastian specifically) believe that the lack of what I want isn’t a detriment to the films he’s made. I can respect that point of view. I just like arguing!

the thing is, that with movies, it’s not about what you want and what the director provides, but it’s about what the director creates and whether that’s something that strikes a chord with you or not… this isn’t starbucks :wink: you can’t complain to the manager because the coffee didn’t taste the way you expected.

Ah but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a Heaven for? I think Tarantino is on the verge of being a great filmmaker, whereas now, he’s one the best genre filmmakers, if that makes sense. I worry that a decade from now, he’s going to still be getting by on style, the way that, though a different style, Kevin Smith is (actually, Smith is failing to get by).

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope for better from someone who has already proven themselves capable. It’s not that I’m really complaining about the coffee. That can’t be unmade, and as far as coffee goes, it was OK. It’s more that I know the barista is capable of making one of the greatest cups of coffee of all time, but hasn’t yet achieved it.

It’s the same for me. Especially as ‘Reservior Dogs’ and ‘True Romance’* are some of my favourite films… so for me it is like I have tasted better coffee by the same person and like Cat, I think he can make better coffee so to speak.

I now fancy a cup o’ joe…

*And I think it is down to Tarantino’s script and characters as much as anything.

IMO QT can do no wrong. I love all his stuff, some more than others. Buy everything he has done is great. Hope the rumored western actually happens.

I don’t think so :wink:

Bloody/gory and violent are different things. A man repeatedly viciously attacking a Bobo doll or trolley from three hours might be the most violent film, despite the lack of gore. Alternatively a film with a man exploding and gushing out an unrealistic amount of blood, guts and gore for about ten minutes might be the most gory film ever made.

I must admit that ‘Kill Bill’ was violent and graphic, but not really realistic. It was trying to hard to be ‘Lone Wolf and Cub’ IMO.

And was an ‘‘OFFICIAL’’ video nasty! It might be the most violent and gory spaghetti western and in truth it is a horror film, with the dead hero, the brutal killing of the bandits, the rape of the blond guy, the scalping of the Native American, the operation, ‘‘The Unhappy Place’’ etc.

Good film too!

As opposed to someone else’s film? :stuck_out_tongue:

…hey, don’t shoot me, I am just an online bandito taking potshots at anything! :wink:

And an Elmore Leonard story to boot. I have to say, though, that after watching Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds in particular, I would be curious to see him work with another scriptwriter, maybe just work from another person’s script.

I feel like he pretty much has free reign to be the monster which is Quentin Tarantino and he’s a kid in a candy shop. He wants to work with all the actors he admires from all the films he’s seen, he wants to borrow shots, music, plot devices, throw in numerous homages. Often that is at the expense of telling a story, so you can enjoy his style, you can watch and you will get the little jokes and think “that was cool”, but is he telling an interesting story? A gripping plot and engaging characters are things I look for in film, but Tarantino undermines both by focussing so much on all the cool shit he’s obsessed with.

I will keep watching his films and I will keep enjoying them for what they are, but he’s limiting himself to just being a nerdy director for nerdy fans. To me it seems unlikely he will ever turn in a film which captivates audiences the way, for example, Shawshank Redemption does. He’s technically a great director, but he just lacks the willingness to let plot and character genuinely drive his films. I think without plot and character it’s quite difficult to get emotionally involved with a film.

Oh, come on. What is there to “get” which is so special? I understand his films, I like them, but his earlier works hinted at a director who could develop into something spectacular. After Pulp Fiction, I had hopes he would produce films like Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola at their best. Unfortunately, the films he has made lack the sophistication or the creative impact to really belong in that category.

His more recent films are less glued to reality because he’s experimenting with genres and basically having fun with the stuff he likes in a more overt fashion. Again, I respect that, I get it, but it simply does not make for more entertaining or higher quality films. It’s almost like he has too much creative freedom, because I’d love for him to make another film which will blow me away the same way Pulp Fiction did when I first saw it.

for Tarantino fans, you are invited to join www.tarantino.info/community and chat away and share gossip about Tarantino’s new project

[quote=“TheBigSmokedown, post:194, topic:613”]And an Elmore Leonard story to boot. I have to say, though, that after watching Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds in particular, I would be curious to see him work with another scriptwriter, maybe just work from another person’s script.

I feel like he pretty much has free reign to be the monster which is Quentin Tarantino and he’s a kid in a candy shop. He wants to work with all the actors he admires from all the films he’s seen, he wants to borrow shots, music, plot devices, throw in numerous homages. Often that is at the expense of telling a story, so you can enjoy his style, you can watch and you will get the little jokes and think “that was cool”, but is he telling an interesting story? A gripping plot and engaging characters are things I look for in film, but Tarantino undermines both by focussing so much on all the cool shit he’s obsessed with.

I will keep watching his films and I will keep enjoying them for what they are, but he’s limiting himself to just being a nerdy director for nerdy fans. To me it seems unlikely he will ever turn in a film which captivates audiences the way, for example, Shawshank Redemption does. He’s technically a great director, but he just lacks the willingness to let plot and character genuinely drive his films. I think without plot and character it’s quite difficult to get emotionally involved with a film.

Oh, come on. What is there to “get” which is so special? I understand his films, I like them, but his earlier works hinted at a director who could develop into something spectacular. After Pulp Fiction, I had hopes he would produce films like Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola at their best. Unfortunately, the films he has made lack the sophistication or the creative impact to really belong in that category.

His more recent films are less glued to reality because he’s experimenting with genres and basically having fun with the stuff he likes in a more overt fashion. Again, I respect that, I get it, but it simply does not make for more entertaining or higher quality films. It’s almost like he has too much creative freedom, because I’d love for him to make another film which will blow me away the same way Pulp Fiction did when I first saw it.[/quote]

I see this completely different. His films have all the qualities you don’t see in them, I see them and I enjoy these qualities.
And I see there much more than a director merely interested in quotes and homages. I think that’s the least interesting point, and QTs film are working without knowing anything about the films he makes references too.

Consequently Jackie Brown is for me his weakest film, but still 8/10

QT is developing, is creative, is highly entertaining. I like him meanwhile much more than 5 years ago.

who likes Justified, based on an Elmore Leonard story and partially produced by him?

@Seb

seen a few episodes, it’s pretty good. Got’s a western vibe to it.

Love it, but I’m a bit behind.

gonna watch the season 2 finale in a few minutes