Think about those directors you would consider to be the greatest of all time. For myself, I would choose Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, and Alfred Hitchcock. They are all directors with a signature style, yet the stories they tell are always front and center. Even a directorial style as eccentric as Kubrick’s manages to work in service to the story.
And that is my basic problem with Quentin Tarantino, and the instantly ejaculatory praise he regularly receives from fanboys and the media. He doesn’t deserve the immense praise he receives because he doesn’t care about telling an engaging and complete story.
Let’s look at Tarantino’s meager output in the fifteen years he has been making movies:
RESERVOIR DOGS – His first film contained electric dialogue and dynamic shot selection that kept the viewer’s eye off the low production values. Unlike CLERKS, Tarantino made his low budget film look professional and intentional.
PULP FICTION – His one true masterpiece. This is the film that catapulted him to the level of automatic auteur. It has style up to its eyebrows, yet the characters and situations are engaging. It also helps that there is an underlying point to the snappy dialogue and mixed-up structure.
JACKIE BROWN – A fine film that was unfairly castigated because it was not PULP FICTION 2. It might be Tarantino’s most “normal” and accessible film overall, although it lacks a discernible amount of energy.
KILL BILL 1 and 2 – Utterly pointless besides the magnificent cinematography. The story is as simple as it gets, and could have been made as one short film, rather than two very long ones. It simply doesn’t get any more self-indulgent.
GRINDHOUSE / DEATH PROOF – Awful in almost every way. While Robert Rodriguez blew the roof off in the opener, PLANET TERROR, Tarantino indulged in a 90 minute talk fest. Not to mention the lack of a cohesive or engaging story behind it all.
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS – We shall see about this one, although initial reviews are indicating another talky, referential traipse through the filmic memory of Tarantino himself.
Like an only child that has been given everything it wants except discipline, Tarantino firmly believes that any idea he has is worthy of filming. Rather than tell a story, Tarantino would prefer to engage in tributes and references that scream out: Look at what I’m doing now! Isn’t this genius?? You never see the great directors act like this from behind the camera.
Here’s the question that nags at me : Does Tarantino actually have a story to tell? Does he have a point to make besides references to other films?
One might argue that, after his first two films, Tarantino is simply having fun with his material, requiring his audience only to go along for a fun ride. That might be true, but isn’t that basically the same aesthetic that Michael Bay employs? Why is Bay castigated and Tarantino glorified?
Extending the Bay comparison, I would contend that Bay’s last few films (TRANSFORMERS, TRANSFORMERS 2, BAD BOYS 2) are better films than Tarnatino’s last few films. They are structurally sound, well-made, and entertaining. Even more, Bay’s films are not trying to be anything other than a cohesive thrill ride. I despise all of Bay’s films, but at least they do not pretend to be something they simply are not. Tarantino’s recent masturbatory output certainly does.
To make my point, the best comparative example I can give is Kevin Smith. Like Smith, Tarantino managed to create a film that touched a nerve with the community, garnering massive press and attention. And while I admit that Tarantino’s subsequent output is of much higher quality than Smith’s – of course, a wet mop could do that, too – it certainly reveals a director whose overall body of work is vastly overpraised.
It would have been interesting to see what Tarantino might have made had PULP FICTION remained in semi-obscurity, or if the press had reigned in their adoration. Unrestrained as he is, Tarantino has become the art-house version of George Lucas, a promising yet unfulfilled talent in desperate need of fewer yes-men and stronger ideas.
60 Comments
It isnt just through Tarantino’s filmic memory though Ray, it’s that of every hardcore movie fan.
I can understand why a lot of people despise Tarantino’s post-Jackie Brown output. I’ve never warmed to Kill Bill, which has its moments but is clearly far too self-indulgent.
What I can’t fathom is how a film which includes one of the sexiest lap dances, one of the most brutal head-on car crashes and one of the greatest car chases in film history has gone down as a mere “talk fest”.
There is a very clear and cohesive story behind Death Proof: it is the tale of how and why Stuntman Mike met retribution.
@ Simon – I am a hard-core film fan. I get some of his references. But I don’t go to the movies to re-experience what I’ve already seen before … I go there to experience something NEW. I would be fine if he had something to say about those references, but his last few films have not.
@ Alex – DEATH PROOF has one of the greatest car chases in history? You need to see more car chases. DP is probably 90% talking … and I’m being generous.
Additionally, DP failed to deliver on the premise of GRINDHOUSE itself. Tarantino wanted to make a homage to the grindhouse films of the past – whatever. But then he delivered a film that did NONE of that. It’s his worst film in my mind.
@Ray
So you go to the cinema to experience something NEW but you slag Tarantino off for not paying sufficient homage to grindhouse films and doing things his own way within the GRINDHOUSE concept? And as I said in Matt’s post on IB, Tarantino clearly has something interesting to say about his references in DP. The film’s main thematic thrust is a rather ambitious deconstruction of the slasher genre’s sexual politics.
Come on, the combination of the lap dance, the car crash and the chase must surely make up more than 10% of the film. And even if that weren’t the case, I don’t think that a film which has 90% talking is necessarily bad per se. It depends on what is being said, how it is being said and why it is being said.
What car chases would you recommend I take a look at?
@ Alex – I didn’t think GRINDHOUSE was a good idea in the first place, hence my dismissive “whatever” comment. However, if you’re going to do it, then actually do it.
As far as better car chases, try classics like FRENCH CONNECTION. Hell, the car chase in TERMINATOR 3 is better.
@Ray
Tarantino did it, but he did it his way. A priori I wasn’t particularly enthused by GRINDHOUSE as a concept – I don’t really get the “so good it’s bad” ethos – but I think both films have things going for them.
I concede French Connection and I would have been willing to accept the superiority of the truck chase in T:2, but I can’t concede Terminator 3. I think Tarantino is right when he says that CGI kills the essence of a good movie car chase. It’s always more exiting to watch people truly risk their lives for the sake of a film.
Sorry, that should have been “so bad it’s good”.
I actualy like his newer movies but you have to put them into a context of the movies Tarantino (and many of us) grew up with. If you like exploitation movies of the old or just the tacky style that is sill existent in many asian film centers than you will like him. Also I think you look to much for a great messages in movies and you bash every movie that doesn’t make you to go out and save little kittens or at least paint them. Movies are also entertainment and a form of art and I think he playes with the current form the movies are being made. We also need a person like him to tribute the old movies as most of the viewers would have no fucking idea of the movies he talks about if not for him. I’m not the best at expessing my opinion clearly so it may be a little confusing but you should get my point ;) Still this is your own opinion I actualy hate Spielberg and think that Scorcese has droped more from his top form than Tarantino (and I loved both kill bill and deathproof but I loved the movies it references and I quest you are not to fond of exploitation)
BTW. Clerks had a much lower budget so it’s a shitty comparison
PS. Did I mention that recently you are so negative? Make one post that
something doesn’t piss you off ;)
@ Alex – Most of the car chase in T:3 was real. There was only a small part of it that contained CGI.
@Ray
Ok, fair dues, but it never had some crazy Kiwi chick dangling from the bonnet of a car.
I agree with much of what you say. Pulp Fiction great, Jackie Brown-good and his most mainstream but the Kill Bill films-I just don’t get why some people love them. I couldn’t get through them as they bored me to tears.
Death Proof was watchable for Russell and the amazing car stunt scene but way too talky. Everything else about Grindhouse was much better.
chuck
Great car chase with no CGI and stuntmen getting hurt?
See Mad Max 2.
I dont see how anyone could think planet terror was a good movie.It was the biggest waste of my time and a crap movie and i love zombie movies.
personnally I think speilberg WAS a good director but came out with shit the past few years and is no longer innovative but either way I think he’s just bad now
@ scott – I dunno if Spielberg has lost his touch as you say. And frankly, I think he’s just as experimental as ever – moreso in fact. It’s just that Spielberg has changed his tastes over the last decade or so, and he’s relaly tried to broaden his filmography. It’s amazing that the same guy who made JAWS or RAIDERS made MINORITY REPORT or MUNICH. His newer stuff is uneven, but just as challenging.
Can’t believe people actually sat through both Kill Bill movies and came away thinking it’s great. It’s Godawful. The only things worth watching are the fight scenes. After that, it’s talk talk talk talk talk talk talk. When people tell me that QT writes great “talk scenes”, I have to ask them: “Why doesn’t he just write a novel, then? THEN all he can do is write as much talk scenes as he wants.” When I go to the movies, i don’t want to sit there and watch people talk my ears off. And the article writer is correct, the sheer amount of love QT gets from the press, especially the foreign press, is cringe-inducing. If i was him, I’d feel embarrassed, but I’m sure he doesn’t. You don’t go from working at a videostore to banging hot Hollywood chicks and think you’re doing something wrong.
Okay okay. Come on, KILLBILL1&2 are cool films. Yes they are simple, but they are simply bad ass. PLUS, QT does not make an appearance in either films.
So that, by it’s self, makes them better QT movies. Although I do feel he’s in a slump. DEATH PROFF was terrible and his performance in PLANET TERROR almost ruined the fun experience I had with that film. When i was watching DP in the theater I was bored! I was yawning! I was looking at my watch! As I sat there I couldn’t believe the emotions I was going through during a QT film.
Lets all just hope BASTARDS will be his GLORIOUS return.
@ Tony – I wholeheartedly disagree with you about KILL BILL. It absolutely did not need to be two long movies. Sure it had some cool fight scenes … but is there anything else there?? The “story” is paper thin, the characters are all cliches and ciphers, and it ultimately has no point. It was made based on Tarantino’s reputation, and it has every sign of an over-inflated ego project.
The most shameful thing about Tarantino is how he has completely failed to capitalize on the early momentum that is career had. After Pulp Fiction the world was his. The smart thing to do would have been to strike while the iron was hot and make as many films as possible. Instead Tarantino rested on his laurels and did not do much of anything for the next couple of years. He displayed a new found maturity with Jackie Brown and then retreated again only to return with the profoundly shallow Kill Bill movies. Tarantino seems to have run out of ideas. His career truly illustrates the law of diminishing returns. He still seems stuck in the 90’s, which is really the last time he made a film that mattered at all.
Tarantino constantly talks about his GOD ANTENNAE….and that he’s many times EMBARRASSED BY HIS AMAZING GIFT FOR DIALOGUE. NOBODY WRITES BETTER DIALOGUE. I CONSTANTLY AMAZE MYSELF
He has recently talked about that EB ….WILL win Oscars and WOULD win big at CANNES. Nothing more boring than blowing your own horn. And all his referrences to his “CUM SHOTS” in his movies and “MASTURBATION” makes you wonder. Watch the reaction of Fiona Apple in the interview they shared!
@ Z – I think Tarantino is more interested in giving long-winded interviews and fucking models than he is in making good movies.
I dont agree with alot of your opinions. Tarantino is a genre director. Also I really dont think its fair to compare a genre director next to Kubrick or Scorsese (whos careers have spanned many decades, and who have tackled many topics)..thats like apples and oranges…
All Im saying is this article just seems like your picking on a director who is only 6 movies into his career.
@ Justin – Yeah … six movies into a career that has been going on for nearly twenty. Now, his slownesss in making films wouldn’t matter if each one was a carefully crafted film … but they’re not. He made DEATH PROOF on a lark and it shows. KILL BILL was unworthy of two films given the nearly thoughtless screenplay. And INGLORIOUS BASTERDS was written hastily and, according to most reports, is all surface gloss.
He simply hasn’t been making quality films throughout his meager career to justify the praise and adoration.
Ray,
…while I understand many of the points you’re making, you sort of shoot yourself in the foot by bringing up Michael Bay, the one person you don’t want to bring up in a discussion geared towards cineasts. But aside from that, I don’t see a) where it sais in the unwritten rule book of cinema, that telling an Aristotleian-type story is a must and b) how Pulp Fiction is so genius and all his other movies are not while when looking at the hard facts, his movies haven’t changed a bit, aside from the budget and the experience he puts into them. Just like Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs (I’ll exclude Jackie here since it’s an adaptation), all his movies are over-referencing homages to a world of cinema that this man soaked up and lives. He won’t ever stop making movies like this and he has always made them like that.
What has changed however, is the inability of some critics out there to adjust their unrealistic expectations and face the fact that they’re not “getting” Tarantino. It’s not Tarantino who’s doing something wrong, it’s the critics completly misunderstanding his type of cinema. If one didn’t like a movie, just say so, but don’t blame Tarantino for not liking his movies.
And no, I’m not super-biased, just because I run the QTA. I do have my things I don’t like about his movies, and I like conversations like this one. But what bugs me is how a director has to justify himself for other people’s misguided expectations.
@ Sebastian – You fail to elaborate on exactly HOW I shoot myself in the foot by bringing up Bay. I can’t stand the guy’s movies, but frankly, his recent films have been better films … if only because they are more entertaining.
And before you start telling me how entertaining Tarantino’s movies are – the box office numbers don’t lie. If KILL BILL was such a great time, then why did those films not hit big??
While I agree that these movies represent the “real” Tarantino, I contend that that is the very reason why he’s overrated. RESERVOIR DOGS is a good movie, and not really a “pulpy” movie at all. PULP FICTION took that idea and infused it with clever references and some thought-provoking ideas about God and fate.
But then Tarantino decided that he was hot shit, and he should follow his muse. GREAT. Except that we have had to endure three utterly pointless films that have only “cool” shots to recommend them. Except that the films are not really all that cool, either.
Are you trying to tell me that we should sit back and enjoy Tarantino’s films on a surface level like we would Bay, and not expect anything deeper? GREAT. But then the films need to be fun…and they haven’t been. KILL BILL is way too long and meandering, with unendurable slow spots. DEATH PROOF is basically 1.5 hours of chicks talking and talking and talking … BORING. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS looks like more wanking, but we will see. If he wants to make B-grade slop, then fine … but at least make them fun.
Bay makes shit … but at least it’s fun.
@Ray
so Bay makes “better” films, because they’re “more entertaining”? how? and to whom? I watched Transformers to see Megan Fox strut her stuff. the movie was a pile of shit. was i entertained? yes. did I think it was a good movie? no.
and of course box office numbers lie. just because not enough people went to see it doesnt mean those who saw it didnt like it. that counts for kill bill (which did make a profit) and also for Grindhouse (which although it flopped I have yet to meet someone who saw it and didn’t enjoy the hell out of it, and trust me I personally took more than 10 people to see it).
I don’t see how Dogs is any less “pulpy” (whatever tha tmight mean) than Pulp Fiction. I don’t get what you dismiss as “utterly pointless”. You seem to like Dogs and Pulp, yet how do these two have more “point” than the others? Because YOU thought he should make another Gangster movie?
I absolutely disagree with you saying his films haven’t been fun. Just recently I had a really diverse crowd over at my place and we watched Death Proof. they all loved it, and most of them were non-moviegeek girls who were even tired after a really long day. Kill Bill is great cinematic entertainment and lots of fun. The very lengths and talkiness that’s usually the point of cricism is the exact aspect that made his earlier movies so famous and Tarantino-ish. Here’s the thing I don’t get: just say you didn’t like it, but don’t blame Tarantino for not making the movie you wanted to see, which you seem unable to explain what that might be.
You can’t argue taste, and by all means please don’t mistake my harsh words for personal attacks, I just value a heated debate :)
I just have to say that a Tarantino movie is a Tarantino movie not because of what you see there happening for 130 or so minutes, but also of what it does to you. They open your eyes to worlds of cinema, especially the younger audiences, that they’ve/we’ve never experienced before. He creates mash-ups of modern cinema distilled through the eyes of a cineast, enriched with the sound of long forgotten (not always) classics, paired with his own personal touch and story telling (if you don’t like chapter structure, stop reading books?), great moments and fantastic performances.
Do I adore Tarantino over everything and think his movies are flawless? Hell no, but I don’t make the mistake of looking at them as if Tarantino owed me something, as if he had to make the movies I made up in my minds out of anticipation. I think criticism towards Tarantino is far too often guided by “not getting” Tarantino, or getting him wrong.
@ Sebastian – You’re not getting my point. Your’e arguing that people shouldn’t take Tarantino’s films more seriously than the surface stuff. I’m saying that Tarnatino is then essentailly another Michael Bay, rather than Jesus resurrected as a film director. EXCEPT that Bay’s films are infinitely more fun than the indulgent talk-fests that Tarantino has been producing.
And box office numbers indicate that, on just the level of entertainment, Bay wins by a landslide with the general public.
I disagree that more people buying tickets equals a better movie. that has a lot to do with marketing and target audience and the fact that yes the average joe out there isn’t a cineast.
And I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t take Tarantino’s films more seriously than the surface stuff, I’m saying they should. There’s more to Tarantino than sunglasses, Big Kahuna burgers and Misirlou.
Have you read this: http://www.empireonline.com/features/damonwise/post.asp?id=552
:) cheers
@ Sebatian – AGAIN, you’re not getting it. I’m not saying more tickets equals better movie … I’m saying that more tickets means more people ENJOY the film … in other words, it’s more entertaining to the masses. Tarantino’s films do not generally sell well, nor do they get great word of mouth as an entertaining film. In other words, they aren’t all that entertaining to most people.
In other words, they fail that basic criteria that you’re arguing in favor of. You’re telling me that Tarantino should only be judged as an entertaining filmmaker, and not by some lofty standard .. but his films aren’t entertaining that many people. So they fail that test.
Frankly, I think there is a fairly large group of people who cannot let themselves realize that Tarantino has not lived up to the potential he showed with his first two films. They mistakenly believe that every film he makes is some sort of God fart that they should inhale and savor … and when critics disagree, they refuse to see the light.
Anyone who is willing to try and defend crap like DEATH PROOF or KILL BILL as anything other than indulgent crap is seriously mistaken or overly infatuated with the man.
QT is a writer-director who makes personal genre films. Bay is a music video director who moved on to making big budget action/CGI heavy movies for the teenyboppers who dont care about cinema past seeing some cool FX and explosions. He has 20 screenwriters to help him. I dont really see any similiarities between them at all. Bay is all action no brains. No soul. Tarantino has everything Bay doesnt have. Thats why I’m a big fan of QT and not Bay.
And the fact that you base how good a filmmaker is on box office shows clearly you’re not a film lover. You’re interested more in someone’s popularity, not in cinema as an artform. Why would I even take someone like you seriously?
I’m pretty sure that the maketability of a 200 million dollar Bay flick than an 80 million dollar Tarantino saga. Especially when Transformers is a well known toy brand, and at least two generations are familiar with.
Kill Bill had it’s slow spots, and it is definitely not perfect but I’ll tell you one thing. There’s never been anything else like it, and Tarantino created awesome character using the same “references” and “talky dialogue” you’re currently denouncing.
The formats and stories might have changed, but Tarantino hasn’t. Why do critics denounce QT’s use of (or overuse of) dialogue on one movie and praise it in others? I’ll never understeand. Hell, RD takes place in in ONE LOCATION for 80% of the movie, and theres arguably more talking in that flick than in Death Proof.
At risk of being called a fanboy, I’ll just have to say that criticizing QT’s post-PF work on the basis that it isn’t much different, and is more/less talky than it needs to be is setting yourself up for fail.
Anyone who an look me in the face and say flat out that Bay is a better director, and makes better films than QT automatically gets the gas face. Fail.
I like your site though. :) Though it is a bit “wordy” at times.
@Dutch “Why do critics denounce QT’s use of (or overuse of) dialogue on one movie and praise it in others?” beats me… not getting QT might be one reason.
I don’t see how anyone with a decent taste for what cinema is can call Kill Bill crap…. just say you didn’t like it, that makes your statement more credible :)
How could any film critic who knows movies compare Tarantino and Bay in the first place? That alone just stops the discussion flat. These guys have nothing in common as directors. QT is coming from an entirely different place than a director for hire like Bay. Not only does Bay makes brainless popcorn movies, hes even been remaking classic horror films that many people love. For me he cant get any worse.
@ Ray Dude I think you need to shut off your computer, put away your XBox and start getting familiar with film. Cuz this type of mindless article just aint flying for me.
This article is complete bollocks. Stupid stupid people. I can’t imagine what it would be like to go through life not being able to comprehend or even accept the true genius that is Quentin Tarantino.
Calling Kill Bill “pointless”… WTF don’t you get about asian cinema? You should’ve been born in Burma, where you wouldn’t have to worry about whether you “get” his movies or not.
Gawd, you’re thick.
@ Ray
So if ticket sales are what makes a film entertaining, then The Titanic is the most entertaining film ever made?
I personally have enjoyed all of QT’s films, up to and including Death Proof. But to judge any artist by their ‘best’ work all the time doesn’t seem fair to the viewer or the artist. In a way, it’s too subjective. The artist him (or her) self might very well have a differing opinion compared to that of the audience. Should we judge the author of this article as far as if this has been his ‘best’ article ever? And if not, has he become a worthless hack until proving differently, by somehow redazzling us all or whatever? No director has ever made a masterpiece every time out of the box. The closest I can think of was Elia Kazan, from 1951-1961. Look it up. Every one of those films is a classic. Even Scorsese hasn’t hit it like that. Who else is close? I’d agree that out of the directors working today, Tarantino is up there with the best of them. At least he’s always worth watching, even if you don’t think it was his ‘greatest’.
Besides, when Pulp Fiction came out, it was hailed in large part BECAUSE of the dialog. And still is. To hear people nowadays criticizing Tarantino because his films are too ‘talky’ just seems kind of odd to me. All of his films, from True Romance to NBK to Dusk ‘Till Dawn, up to and including Basterds, I imagine, have featured the dialog front and center. It’s what he does. He’s said that himself, many times. How for him it’s about the dialog. The people talking. So if you’re not into that, or not into what his characters talk about any more, don’t watch his stuff anymore. Or just watch Pulp Fiction repeatedly. Or go back to only watching silent movies, I don’t know… I’m not the biggest war movie fan, but I look forward to seeing Basterds. It should have a bit of real spirit in there, at least. Which is definitely not what I’d find in a Bay (etc.)movie.
Kill Bill is like an “enfant terrible” movie, altough quentin isnt young anymore hehe if you just stop rationalizing too much, you will certainly find a lot to enjoy in Kill Bill
the fun of cinema is evident in almost every episode…my only complains are that its a little too sentimental at some points (specially the end); and that i think some episodes are a little boring, like the Hattori Ranzo one…but seriously, how can you love cinema, and i mean really love the simple and yet amazing experience of sitting trough a movie (in oposition to love cinema criticism, wich i think is often the case with critics), and not enjoy something like Kill Bill?
The films of Quentin Tarantino (QT),
For those of you out there who oppose QTs later films, you simply do not understand the films you have seen, and the filmmaker QT.
Kill Bill and Death Proof were fantastic films.
In regards to Kill Bill, for that is where most of my knowledge of Foreign Film were relevant as I can reflect upon them. I live in Adelaide South Australia, and we have a television channel called SBS, and from about 1999 to Feb 2006, I watched almost every film they ever showed, all being foreign films from every decade (in film history) gone.
In QT films, every scene, every piece of music, lots of dialogue, and scenarios, the way how scenes are shot, and I could go on with many other aspect of the film, but in all these and every aspect of the film, they can all be referenced to other films.
In regards to how the films of Quentin Tarantino are viewed, there are three types of viewers, and first two make up the majority of people, probably 95% of the people who see these films, and the third type is someone like myself, and few others 5%.
The first two types are commercial movie goers.
1. The audience, and those who are not well versed in cinema as a whole, not taking into consideration films that are from foreign countries. It is these people who say the film was so cool and so original, of which they don’t realise that it is not, as they haven’t been exposed to films. They don’t understand.
2. The audience, who have been exposed to films, and these people say that the film is hopeless, pathetic, boring, and takes off of other films, and references films. It is these people who do not understand what Quentin Tarantino is doing, as QT doesn’t try to make a film, he makes a film. (Yoda said ‘Try not, Do, Do Not, there is no Try). Those who ‘try’ something cannot bring themselves to fully appreciated what it is that they are trying to do, as they don’t take it on board, they look at things just on the outward appearance.
3. The third are those people like myself who really appreciate cinema, and take it from all degrees. We realise that QT’s films are original, not from the point of just referencing, but that the whole film being a total film reference is an original take. There are countless numbers of films that I have seen, and they are big let downs, as the films try to portray original ideas, but throughout there are references, that by the way are not known by the commercial cinema goer, and it is seen by the general population as an original idea, they are let downs, they have faulted. Yet Tarantino films are complete references, and the concept of the film being a complete film reference is an original idea. So there you go, there are also three types of films, original ideas, original ideas with the occassional film reference, and an idea that is a complete film reference in an original approach.
Tarantino as in the picture, as seen above, is a true one, there are people who live life, and those that try life and fail, and then there is QT, a man who has shot himself a million times over, and he killed himself in the making, and yet he lives (he is not dead as others who are constantly praised, he is alive, in the present).
On a last note, the films of Quentin Tarantino are engaging and are complete.
Michael Bay’s films are wonderfully shot, but sometimes, like Transformers, while the outside looks brilliant, the shell had no life it in. QT’s films have life in them, the films that make the life of the film.
Did you listen to the dialogue within Death Proof? It doesn’t seem like you did. Hereby is another comparison, almost everytime I ask someone what was the music like in a film, they say ‘I can’t remember’. It’s from within the dialogue and how it is written that the story gives life, as music gives life to a film. If you don’t listen to what is driving the film, you will not understand.
Kill Bill is a beatuiful controversial western samurai masterpiece, and for those who haven’t seen westerns or so called Spaggetti Westerns, you don’t know what long is in regards to a films length, or should I say Samurai films, as Westerns were influenced by Samurai films, and what does the length of a film do, it gives a story, I wish most of the movies that I see had more length to them, but no, the commercial cinema goer can’t seem to sit in a seat for a longer period of time (what’s wrong with them – more to the point what is wrong with the studios who release these films, all they care about is money, and not quality).
Why do the films not hit big, well like the Kingdom of Heaven (not the film, I do mean Heaven), to get there it is a straight and narrow path, and QTs audience is a refined audience, except Tarantino isn’t a man after Heaven, he is a Samurai, he lives his life unto death, and that he has accomplished, and does well. In the world of films, what are your stands? are you Moral, Immoral or Amoral – how do you view cinema?
Quentin Tarantino knows films and knows how to approach the making of his films.
Let it go man and have fun ;)
People who dont like Quentin have no idea what they are missing
Anyone who doesn’t appreciate Kill Bill cannot be taken seriously. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 was probably the most exciting and entertaining movie going experience in my life, almost surpassed by Grindhouse. These ludicrous comparisons of QT to Bay has got to be a joke. As to Bay’s popularity, general audiences aren’t as harsh on a film, and generally go to see the big budget flashy films that get marketed like crazy. The reason more people aren’t entertained by Tarantino is that they don’t go see his films… their loss. Tarantino is my favorite filmmaker because even with these high expectations, he always delivers something fresh, although as Sebastian said, not always what people are expecting. If you want to compare Tarantino to anyone, compare him to his actual peers, the Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson, who each have their own distinct style, but still manage to surprise and surpass expectations (i.e. No Country for Old Men & There Will Be Blood). I simply cannot wait to see Inglourious Basterds and am looking forward to seeing how QT will surprise me this time.
Ugh … how to respond to all of this?? Either you get it or you don’t.
Ray you lost all credibility when you wrote that Michael Bay’s movies were well-made and structurally sound… (Pearl Harbor anyone?) Its comments like yours that shows just how far the movie going audience in this country has fallen. Movies today are the equivalent of cotton candy pretty on the outside but no substance nothing to sink your teeth into… I find Michael Bay’s movies to be boring and tedious and I think I’ve only been able to sit through one or two of them. Seriously can you sit through the whole 2 hours of Bad Boys or Armageddon I can’t. Say what you will about Tarantino but I find his work innately more interesting and watchable than the work of Michael Bay McG Ratner or any of the other boy wonder directors out there today. Is it fair to compare Tarantino to Kubrick or Hitchcock? Eh maybe not but he is a great director one of the best out there today and one that will go in the history books… I doubt AFI will be doing retrospectives of Ratner’s work 50 years from now…
And who says that great films have to be easy to watch in order to be worthy of being deemed great… Movies such as Blow Up The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoise (sp?) and 81/2 (one of Scorsese’s favorites) have all at one time or another been deemed to be great films and often turn up on greatest films of all times lists. Are they easy to watch? not always Is it tough to hang in there till the end? it can be … but after having watched them you can always be glad you did. You can appreciate the skill of the filmmaker and the true genius in the films after having watched them.. These films demand something of the audience. You have to think and can’t zone into a caffiene and sugar induced haze and let the images wash over you with no thought as to what you are seeing. That’s all many films are these days. A bunch of incoherent images strung together with no plot (kind of like National Treasure 2 Bad Boys 2 Jumper Terminator Salvation I could go on) I think Tarantino’s film demand something of the audience… His films are interesting and enjoyable to watch and if you bother to learn something about the films he was influenced by his work becomes even more interesting and relevant. Tarantino exposes you to a whole world of filmm0aking and most of the time you don’t even know it
@ Ray:
Trust me, we all get it.
You’ve stated that:
1) Tarantino’s films don’t get as big of audiences as Bay, so Bay’s are MUCH more entertaining than QT flicks like Kill Bill.
The problem with this statement is that Bay’s films are MINDLESS. I mean, this is the same guy who told McG “my films robots could kill your films robots”. Structurelly soundness is subjective. In transformers we find out that a samll faction of alien robots (with human like forms) shoot down to Earth to find a pair of eyeglasses with the longitude and latitude of a giant energon cube concealed by the Hoover Dam etched into them, after a nerd kids grandpa found a giant robot after falling 500 feet into an icy crevice…….Holy Christ. What a horrible idea. How can you even DEFEND such a horrible concept, and film? I actually collected Transformers as a kid and probably came up with better scenarios playing with the action figures on the playground.
You know, I’m beginning to think the problem isn’t Tarantino, but certain ex-fans griping about QT films tha don’t have bank robbers, suit wearing Gangsters, and black people saying the n-word often. Peaople wanted QT to follow that “Ritchie” formula where he only makes the same movie over and over.
Kill Bill was a revenge flick. You want to call it simple and uninspired? Well, guess what, almost every damn good revenge flick had a simple narrative. I mean Beatrix has a list with 5 names on it! And she’s crossing them out one by one, how much more simple can it get? Budd, Bill, Esteban, The Bride, Buck, Budd’s boss, were all QT characters, and they helped make that film great. Someone mentioned that the Hatorri Hanzo sequence was one of the worst, well it’s one of my favorite sequences of Kill Bill. Along with the Pai Mei, and House of Blue Leave final battle.
I have friends that can’t stand QT films. They just don’t like them, period. This also includes PF, RD, and JB. If they say it’s “too talky”, and kind of boring I can respect that. But if you ever loved PF or Resevoir dogs and have the nerve to call anything else he’s every directed “too talky”, or “a reference-fest” witha straight face, you lose all credibility. A first semester Film student can draw a line through the Tarantino-esque stylistics of QT from RD all the way down to DP. Let’s be honest and just say that you don’t like QT because he doesn’t WANT to impress you or anyone else. He just wants to make his types movie and let you see it. And for some reason people hate him for that. Which is fine, unless you denounce the same elements that made other QT films, that you loved, because of ticket sales and who knows what else.
It’s too easy to call someone a fanboy, and I’ll admit that every director has their own legion. I didn’t really like DP. It’s the only fQT film I don’t own on DVD or Blu-Ray. I’ve tried to convince myself to buy it but I ca’t justify it. I just didn’t like it all that much. Kill Bill however, was a BLAST! It had so many elements of other movies I loved that it really is one of my favorite films of the past 10 years. How
Anyway, her’s to Pulp Fiction 2! Wait, you never saw it? You had to have, about 100 different directors have attempted to make it in the past 14 years and haven’t come close. Lucky Number Slevin anyone?
Again, I despise Michael Bay films. I am not sticking up for the guy at all. But fi Tarantino fans want to argue that his films should be recognized for their entertainment vlaue, I submit that Bay’s films are more entertaining than the average Tarantino talk-fest.
And since JACKIE BROWN, Tarantino’s films have not had a point at all. They are collections well-framed shots with no point at all.
I don’t think Bay’s film are entertaining at all. They make me want to go to sleep or claw my eyes after remembering I paid 9+ dollars to see that crap (which I don’t anymore). I think Tarantino’s films even his worst one (Deathproof) were able to hold my interest and attention better than Transformers or Bad Boys or Rush Hour 3 (yes I know Ratner directed it ) or Terminator Salvation (why oh why did I watch that)
Ray:
Fair enough about liking/not liking Bay films. I like them up to a very specific point but other than that I think they are pretty bad the whole way around.
However, entertainment value all depends on the person watching the film. I would contest that Kill Bill was VERY entertaining to a lot of people that like revenge flicks. Especially revenge flicks with Samurai swords, kung fu fighting, and hot chicks. You based entertainment value on how many tickets the movie sells.
The average tarantino talk fest has usually been well reviewed by critics. ALL of Qt’s films are talk fests. It’s whether or not the characters SPEAK TO YOU and are interesting to YOU that determines whether you’re going to like a QT flick.
You can’t say you hate “talk-fests” and then right after say that RD and PF were dope. Cause in essence they were talk-fests as well. QT has always polarized audiences, and his new film is doing just that. It’s not cool to be a QT fan anymore, and everyone has their interpretation on what a QT film should have in it and deliver.
It’s the people (fanboys or not) that are willing to watch a QT film and at least give it a chance whose opinions really matter. Tarntino’s only problem is that he didn’t keep making two-piece suited gangster flicks for bandwagon jumping mouthbreathers. And thats the same reason I actually respect him as a film maker.
Sorry, Ray. You’re fighting a losing battle here.
It’s too bad you didn’t see the personal story within KILL BILL. The film is, in many ways, a tribute to Quentin’s own mother, whom he’s had sort of a love/hate relationship with for many years now. You argue that KILL BILL is pure indulgence and bad. You claim TRANSFORMERS is better. Okay. Let’s take a look, shall we?
KILL BILL: A kung fu action picture that delivers the bloody goods promised by the conventions of the genre, yet knows how to have a quiet scene or two as well. In other words, the film knows how to pace itself.
TRANSFORMERS: Roughly two hours of mindless, soul-crushing, eardrum-collapsing, ball-shrinking bullshit with one of the longest, most masturbatory action sequences in cinema history at its climax. You talk about indulgence! “I wanna see more explosions! Gimme more explosions!”
KILL BILL: A melting pot of genre that includes kung fu, samurai, spaghetti westerns and gangster films that culminates in something the likes of which you’ve never seen before.
TRANSFORMERS: Exactly the thing you’ve seen a million times before, and should expect to see again and again.
KILL BILL: A story of a heart-wrenching moral dilemma for a woman who wants to take revenge on the man who tried to kill her and her baby, but who also happens to be the love of her life and her child’s loving father. Does she take revenge and raise her daughter without a loving father who also happens to be a killer, or does she let Bill live and never see him punished for the atrocities he’s committed? It’s the most primal of crisis!
TRANSFORMERS: Uh… there’s this rock, right? And it falls to the Earth, and some robots want it. But there’s also bad robots, and one of them is frozen in, like, this awesome ice thing. And… uh… you get to see a robot piss on John Turturro! TOILET HUMOR! GUFFAW!!!! That’ll put asses in seats, unfortunately.
Ray, i’d loved to go into great lengths about how wrong you are but i’ll sum up what your comments made me think. Your looking at Shakespeare , Mozart , Da Vinci , Dali , Leone …………. and saying it’s rubbish !!!!!!!!!!. For that i thank you , the premise of your article is so funny HHHAAAAA HHHHHAAAAA HHHHHAAA i can’t stop laughing HHAAAA HHAAAA HHHAAA. It’s not a case of open your mind as completely wake up your whole head. HAAAA HHHHAAAA HHAAA HHHAAAAAA. A tip for you LOOK WITH BETTER EYES AND LISTEN WITH BETTER EARS and you will be rewarded with Nirvana.
You say ‘tomato’, I say ‘Tarantino’.
Ray…
I dunno how to say this…
But…
You know there’s a thing called ART. And art is what, for example, directors do. AND Tarantino makes art by his own: he writes and directs the movie. AND then Bay: he directs a script made by 15 people who know how to sell a movie how make a BOX OFFICE HIT.
That has nothing to do with art.
Art is something you feel inside you.
Art is not Bay movie with explosions and so called “entertaimet”.
Good and artistic movie can be entertainig as well. And it’s lots of better than the “entertaiment movie”.
Don’t you get you are so wrong that you don’t have any bravery to admit that you are wrong?
Once Upon a Time in America didn’t get any BOX OFFICE FUCKING HIT moneys but it is one of the classic movies.
So, why don’t you someday rent Citizen Kane or Good, Bad and the Ugly and them? That might give you somthing you’ve never felt.
Yours truly,
Kekkonen
Ray,
I personally think that Tarantino is one of the most fascinating and idiosyncratic American filmmakers. Does that mean that everything he does is genius? No. But the most interesting filmmakers are the ones who don’t play it safe and put themselves in the way of failure and risk bad box office returns to make a film their own unique way. There are interesting failures and failures that just suck. If Tarantino ever made a disappointing film, it wasn’t a boring disappointment.
The fact that he defies generic expectations instead of giving people instant gratification and predictable action to meet box office standards is what sets his work apart from any other director’s.
Your thesis seems to be that Tarantino is crappy because Michael Bay (who you also claim is crappy) at least makes box office hits and simple entertainment. Why do you seem to think that a satisfying film has to be a simple entertainment and not something subversive or challenging? I agree that Death Proof is way too talky and that Tarantino got carried away with his love of writing dialogue in that film, but he was challenging his audience with pacing, suspense, delayed payoffs and the kind of structural storytelling we don’t see from Hollywood much anymore. With Death Proof I think his intention was beginning the film like it was Dazed and Confused (a film that is an entertaining classic and is nothing but talk!) and abruptly change it into a thriller about a psychopath with a car crash fetish. If people went into Death Proof not knowing the plot or not seeing the trailer, it’s possible that they would have found it more effective.
But in the end art is subjective. What some find genius, others find overrated.
I think everyone has summed it up nicely, Ray if you think that ticket sales determine if a movie is entertaining, you have no reason to be talking about the grammar of Tarantino’s cinema or cinema in general. Just retire, hang it up. As for the entertainment value of his films compared to Bays or any other director: Tarantino has now put out five feature films which he both wrote and directed, excluding: my best friends birthday, four rooms, JB, for me personally what makes a tarantino film so amazing is not only the shot selection, cinematography, dialogue and great selection of characters, is that he fucking wrote it all!
I’m always astonished that he has come up with all of these stories. He’s written five great fucking scripts all in different genres or if your QT “sub genre films”. That’s something that no one modern day director can say they accomplished with such flare and excitement, not Spielberg not Scorsese not even QT’s favorite directors Howard hawks, de palma and leone. None of them can hold his jock. Whoop dee fucking doo Spielberg, Scorsese, bay all have gotten more spotlight in the past years, but there just directors they steal other people stories, that the writers have but their blood sweat and tears to create. Everyone talks about how great they are but they just bring the script to life they didn’t come up with the story. But in the media on rotten tomatoes, At the movies with roger ebert, the tv show, they talk about the film as if Spielberg, Scorsese they created the story. When have you heard a writer credited for the film in a critical review. Spielberg, Scorsese etc get too much credit when all they do is shoot the script. They don’t have even fucking close the creative talent that tarantino has to create a great story. Thats what makes Tarantino so great he WRITES and directs all his stuff, the writer-director in today’s modern day cinematic world is a dying and basically extinct breed. Thats why in my mind Tarantino is one of the greatest if not the greatest writer director of all time.
My definition of a real director is someone who sits down, expresses themselves and brings a story to life on paper. Then goes out and continues to express and fulfill his vision that he originally saw, through filming it. Spielberg just picks it up half way through the process, films it, then everyone says “Wow! that was an unbelievable movie, Spielberg is amazing! He’s the best! If you think about a film the only thing the director can take credit for is coaching the actors and framing the shots, every fucking other detail the dialogue, the plot, what happens to characters within the story, the underlying theme of the film, everything you see when you go to a theater besides the frames of the film is not the creation of the director. Remember directors are handed a complete story, no details left out, and they just shoot it that’s IT!!! They don’t do anything else.
Again that’s why Tarantino continues to amaze is because he’s such a film buff and imaginative filmmaker, he creates everything we see in the frame. IT”S HIS COMPLETE VISION!! THAT is the true creative genius that is QUENTIN TARANTINO. He started out with a blank piece of paper!!! For all you critics try sitting your ass down, give yourself 120 pieces of paper and try to come up with a legitimate story and then show it critics and see how it sizes up. So Ray or any other critic don’t compare QT to any other bullshit director that doesn’t come up with their own story, because he’s in a completely different league. A league that’s tons more creative than other directors. Only compare writer-directors to other writer-directors because like QT they have the balls to put their ass on the line for a story they came up with and a vision they see, not stealing someone else’s. Or in Bay’s postion stealing from many people for only a single film. Even in the plateau that is the dying breed of writer-directors, QT still stands tall over all others because he has stayed to his ideas instead of settling for stealing from other people eventually. Examples are PT Anderson, Coen brothers, Ritchie, Coppola, all wrote but eventually ran out of ideas and took other people’s ideas. That’s why QT is the soul remaining creative genius filmmaker today and that’s why he’ll go down in history.
Just sort of like an FYI… Tarantino didn’t direct Clerks, it was Kevin Smith. If you’re going to bash a guy, do some research. Besides that glaring mistake, the article was a frustrating read. Tarantino is one of the few living directors along with the likes of Spielberg, and Scorsese (among others) that actually tell stories. I think you’re bitter over past mistakes, and have forgotten what a story actually is. Next time do some research.
Ray doesn’t actually say that Tarintino directed Clerks here. If you are going bash a guy, Research at least read what he has to say first.
“Think about those directors you would consider to be the greatest of all time. For myself, I would choose Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, and Alfred Hitchcock. They are all directors with a signature style, yet the stories they tell are always front and center. Even a directorial style as eccentric as Kubrick’s manages to work in service to the story.”
The youngest in the list are Spielberg and Scorsese and they began more than 30 years ago. Tarantino might not have changed cinema as much as Welles or Bresson did but again which US director who began his career in the last 25 years did?
Signature style? Hitchcock yes. But for the others (whom I like, I precise it)… I don’t totally agree for Scorsese. The visual of his movies always did come from assembling references borrowed from other directors or painters. The use of the red in Taxi Driver borrowed from Bava. For Mean Streets, some camera moves were borrowed from Welles and his use of music inspired by Kenneth Anger. For The Last Temptation of the Christ it was Cecil B De Mille, great painting portraits of Jesus Christ. For the Age of Innocence, the work of Powell and Pressburger and The Magnificent Ambersons. Etc etc… Concerning Kubrick, his use of travelling was borrowed from Ophuls. Concerning Spielberg, the aesthetic of SPR’s opening scene took its source in lots of military movies made during WWII. He just went back to a direction (documentary-inspired style, will for realism) which had been abandoned by US war movie.
Plus it’s obvious why Tarantino worships a movie like Breatheless. In that movie, Godard had borrowed a lot from all the directors he worshipped (Belmondo looking at the camera as if he wanted to interact with the audience from Bergman for instance) but the movie had a tone of its own. The character of Belmondo was at the same time as much a gangster as a gangster fond of cinema. The movie didn’t care about carrying being deep. But the movie had a tone of its own. I think it’s the same for all QT movies, whether good or bad. They have a tone that is tarantinian. And they don’t need to carry a big vision of society to matter.
“RESERVOIR DOGS – the low production values”
Low production values? It isn’t a big budget movie but, thanks to Sejkula’s cinematography, it doesn’t LOOK cheap.
“PULP FICTION – His one true masterpiece.”
I personally don’t think so. I find the Butch character and the Butch story less attaching than the Jules/Vincent and the Vincent Mia relationship. I’d rather make JB his real masterpiece because the characters are equally deep and interesting and because they are deeper than in PF. I think lots of people tend to favour PF because of the novelty at the time of his use of narrative deconstruction, of the Travolta comeback.
“JACKIE BROWN – it lacks a discernible amount of energy”.
It’s supposed to be a movie about a lady who’s reached a certain age, is tired of life, still lives on a cheap job she doesn’t like but is making a last coup in order to find money for a quiet retired life. Expecting energy here is like expecting gunfights in Bridges of Madison County.
“KILL BILL 1 and 2 – Utterly pointless besides the magnificent cinematography. The story is as simple as it gets, and could have been made as one short film, rather than two very long ones.”
The story simple? It’s simply what I like about it: giving an epic treatment to an exploitation movie pitch. One short film? I know some find the crazy 88 stuff overlong but I don’t. As for Volume 2, the parts that don’t serve the action are the ones who give the characters more depth: the fact that Budd is a loser who’s trying to earn money by killing The Bride but will fail to, the Esteban part that tells us how Bill was one of those fatherless figures who turned into movie obsessing and professional killing because of it, the pregnancy test thing who tells us why The Bride’s so anger for revenge.
“Tarantino would prefer to engage in tributes and references that scream out: Look at what I’m doing now! Isn’t this genius?? You never see the great directors act like this from behind the camera.”
It’s not just references just for fun. Bill is fatherless just like Quentin was. In True Romance, lots of parts seem autobiographical: the Comic book store one of course, the meeting between Lance and the father he rarely met, the moments of contacts between Lance and the Hollywood executive (reminding of the time when QT was trying to make his way in Hollywood before his glory). A talk like the opening one in RD is one he might have had with Avary back when he worked at the Video Archives.
“Here’s the question that nags at me : Does Tarantino actually have a story to tell? Does he have a point to make besides references to other films?”
KB tells the story of how a woman will revenge of those who took her her most cherished thing. So it tells a story. RD tells how a well planned robbery failed. It’s pitches seen thousand times but in genre cinema the originality has always been in the treatment not in the pitch.
“That might be true, but isn’t that basically the same aesthetic that Michael Bay employs? Why is Bay castigated and Tarantino glorified?”
Because Tarantino has a director’s vision whereas Bay is just making overlong MTV videoclips. The patchwork in his work is not just fun. It does come from someone who’s well aware of movie history and genre history. Like at the end of RD to bring into a US gangster movie an Asian-like vision of the gangster code of honor. Or in PF bringing into gangster movies an inrony taken from A Fistful of Dollar. Plus at the difference of Bay Tarantino doesn’t use quick cutting just to make the audience believe something is happening.
“Tarantino has become the art-house version of George Lucas, a promising yet unfulfilled talent in desperate need of fewer yes-men and stronger ideas.”
Lucas created in strong mythology with the Star Wars but IMHO the first Star Wars is visually flat. It’s not the case with Tarantino.
Okay, I understand your disconnect with DEATH PROOF. That was the first Tarantino film that fell flat for me. But, I could see where he was going, I can admit there were some good spots and it’s pretty evident that there was a point to the thing. It’s about Mike and his comeuppance. It’s about seeing what a vile predator looks like when he’s wounded and exposed. It’s feminism writ large and explicit. Admittedly, that’s nothing new, but it’s not “pointless” as you put it.
Now, does that stop the film from being deeply flawed? No, I feel it could have been shorter, sharper and not so damned boring half the time. It should have been thriller, and you’re write to criticize Tarantino’s sense of pacing with this film. Further, your identification of Tarantino’s love of his own wit is a real vice here, but you hopelessly sensationalize it to extravagant flights of fancy: namely, placing Michael Bay into the conversation.
As someone already put it, if ticket sales were an explicit tale of entertainment value, Titanic would be the most entertaining film of all time. I’d hope that you understand this is but one indicator of a film’s value, even with this aspect, and that the simplicity of your argument is contrived, rather than logical.
I do understand what you’re trying to argue: Tarantino is worse than Bay because while the latter’s films are pointless tripe, at least he doesn’t pretend to be something better like Tarantino, and his films are actually entertaining as well. However, I wouldn’t agree and I find your line of thought baffling. Firstly, I’ve already argued that I wouldn’t describe even Tarantino’s worst film as “pointless”, although I do acknowledge that it borders on “tripe” territory. Secondly, I find your measure of “entertainment” value flawed – you should admit that it’s a more complex situation than that; more subjective than what you suggest. Michael Bay’s films are entirely created for the purpose of succeeding at the BO. (TRANSFORMERS not only had big stars, big explosions and big set pieces, but also a big franchise behind it) To be fair to the man, he knows how to construct visual feasts and he’s good at it, but the lack of emotional investment that he shapes in his characters and world means that I will never look at one of his films the same way I would at a KILL BILL or a JACKIE BROWN.
Diverging from the main thrust of this piece, I feel sad for anyone who says JACKIE BROWN “lacks a discernible amount of energy”. If it had come out from any other director … Seriously, one of the most unsung films of the 90s.
Tarantino is the most overrated director out there. Kill Bill was one of the most pathetic piles of shit created in the last twenty years. The worst thing about Tarantino is the legions of brainless fucks who praise his work but do not have a clue about cinema.