Um, Matt … I think you need to calm down and get a little perspective about Tarantino. His every fart is not Mozart, okay?

Actually, several negative-to-indeterminate reviews are in on this movie, demonstrating that Tarantino might not have hit this one out of the ballpark as you allude here.

It’s fine for him not to like the movie and I see many others have, it’s just the wording he and a few others have used.

Peter Bradshaw at The Guardian calling it an “unrealistic war movie”, well that was never what Tarantino aimed for. You can’t really have a go at him for that, because that was intentional. It was never meant to be a realistic war movie, now say you don’t like it but don’t knock it down a notch for that.

Kirk Honeycutt giving away the ending and coming up with the same kind of remarks. They just haven’t understood a single shred of the movie.

Jeff Wells wasn’t overly keen on the movie but at least he understood what it was about. These two guys didn’t.

Yeah … I gotta tell ya, I’ve just about had enough of Tarantino’s wank-fests. Think about the last three films he’s made – they’re all just masturbatory nonsense that gets made only because of his name and (former) reputation. KILL BILL did not deserve to be two whole films … GRINDHOUSE was a failure, mostly on Tarantino’s end … and this is nothing more than a bunch of dialogue scenes strung together with homages rather than actual storytelling.

I may need to write an article about this … I just think that we have had very visual and unique directors in the past – think Kubrick, for example – but they still manage to have a story to tell or a POINT to make the film. There is not point to making INGLORIOUS BASTERDS except for Tarantino to show off more references, employ unconventional actors, and pay homage to films he liked in his youth.

That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a film.

Tarantino has definitely started to loose the battle with a growing number of critics since Kill Bill. The thing is that the the criticism he now tends to receive – that his films are nothing but exercises in movie recycling with over-the-top smart-ass dialogue – is for stuff that has always been present in every single one of his movies. It seems there has been a shift in the zeitgeist in that respect – what worked so well for him in the 1990s doesn’t work as well in the current climate.

I personally feel that a lot of the criticism is unfair. Many people said that Death Proof had no point either (as Ray has just now). Now, you can agree with the point it makes or not, but a close look at the film shows that it is above all THEMATICALLY driven. Almost every frame, piece of dialogue and song in the film tries to make a point about the role and representation of women in the slasher genre and what is fundamentally wrong (in Tarantino’s view) about that role and representation.

Tarantino’s thesis in Death Proof is that contrary to what is suggested by classics like Psycho or Halloween, the women who would survive a slasher baddie are those who live by their own rules, with independence from the morality imposed by men. To convey this point he juxtaposes a traditional slasher story of women who live their lives depending on men and another story of women who live their lives as equals (or perhaps even superiors) of the male sex. One group dies at the hands of Stuntman Mike and the other kicks Mike’s head in. So no, the film is plainly not just some exercise in style.

I think Ray’s comparison with Kubrick is apposite. In fact, if you look at the merciless criticism Kubrick (one of the most important artistic geniuses of the twentieth century) received throughout his career, it tends to be of exactly the same hue: many critics claimed that his films were stunning-looking pieces of vacuity, and this for the simple reason that they didn’t get what he was trying to do. I’m not going to say that films like Kill Bill or Death Proof will age as well as 2001 or Eyes Wide Shut, because I don’t think that will be the case. But I think that in the future they will certainly be given a fairer hearing than they are getting now.

@ Alex – I disagree. Tarantino is getting all of his praise in full right now. The guy could film himself taking a shit and everyone would praise it.

@Ray

I’m reading lots of heavy-handed criticism towards him lately, across the whole spectrum of film journalism but especially in the mainstream. The other day, for example, there was an absolutely venomous piece in The Times which blamed Tarantino for single-handedly initiating the corruption of Cannes’ ideological purity because Pulp Fiction won the Palme d’Or. The Honeycutt video is another example. And an important percentage of Death Proof’s reviews were absolutely savage. You could tell that a lot of commentators felt the need to cut him down to size.

It is true that there are a lot of people out there for whom Tarantino can do no wrong, but he’s clearly not the untouchable he was in the 1990s.

@ Alex – Just look at his movies if you want to understand why he is receiving more criticism. He is not producing films worthy of the anticipation they receive. Look at the way everyone is fumbling around about INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. What does this movie contain that is worthy of the praise? It’s an unrealistic, homage-filled war movie with tons of dialogue … does it have anything else to offer besides these slight rewards???

I mean, Tarantino is in his forties, and has been directing since the early ninties. It’s time to shit or get off the pot.

@Ray

“What does this movie contain that is worthy of the praise?”

I’ve no idea, I haven’t seen it yet.

As to the anticipation his movies generate: the guy directed two and wrote two of the most influential films of the 1990s. Of course his movies create anticipation. But as your own remarks suggest, that anticipation has started to backfire on him big time.

Tarantino movies have always been unrealistic, packed with references to other films and full of idiosyncratic dialogue which refers to pop culture. The problem he faces is that this kind of stuff doesn’t seem as appropriate in the current climate. Many moviegoers (myself included) can relate much easier to more realistic, down to earth films such as The Wrestler or Gran Torino at the moment.

Having said all that, there is no denying that his first three movies are clearly better than his last three, although I think Death Proof deserves more credit than it generally gets.

I thought deathproof was great a lot better than that crap Planet Terror.

Way to go, Matt! Way to really cherry pick your quotes and distort them. This is what Peter Bradshaw’s review really said:

“It isn’t funny; it isn’t exciting; it isn’t a realistic war movie, yet neither is it an entertaining genre spoof or a clever counterfactual wartime yarn. It isn’t emotionally involving or deliciously ironic or a brilliant tissue of trash-pop references. Nothing like that.”

Bradshaw, by the way, gave the original Kill Bill 5/5 stars.

And here’s what you said, Matt:

“Peter Bradshaw at The Guardian calling it an “unrealistic war movie”, well that was never what Tarantino aimed for. You can’t really have a go at him for that, because that was intentional. It was never meant to be a realistic war movie, now say you don’t like it but don’t knock it down a notch for that.”

That wasn’t quite what he said, was it? You’re better than that, Matt Holmes… I think…

In my opinion it looks a little desperate to make a post pleading not to view another critics review. Opinions are everywhere, why try to prevent them. If anything your aiming traffic to this review you want nobody to see.

The movie’s theme is that cinema, the power of images we see on our screens can beat even someone like Hitler and The Third Reich.

The better critics around the web have understood that.

Todd McCarthy at Variety..

“a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor…by turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, [it's] an increasingly entertaining fantasia in which the history of World War II is wildly reimagined so that the cinema can play the decisive role in destroying the Third Reich.”

That’s someone who understood the movie. There’s plenty of critics online who don’t like the film but at least acknowledge what it was trying to be.

Peter Bradshaw just goes through a list of things the movie isn’t. But i could do that about anything…

Terminator Salvation is not the best romantic comedy of the year, nor does it have the best pie eating contest or scenes with formula one racing cars.

If you notice his review, he doesn’t actually tell us what the movie is. Apart from being awful.

All you fuckers need to calm down!
tarantino isn’t all that!