Quentin Tarantino - Still got it or lost it?

[jarvis]

I enjoyed almost all of his movies, Pulp Fiction being my favorite. The fact that he lifted Reservoir Dogs from City on Fire diminished my appreciation of it. I also wasn't thrilled with the second Kill Bill and that, followed by Death Proof, made me think he had totally lost it. Inglorious Basterds completely redeemed him in my eyes, and I'm looking forward to Django Unchained.

 

[Maelstrom]

Death Proof is great as long as Kurt Russell is on screen. The rest of the movie was just an edgier Sex and the City

QFT. Kurt made that film for me.

 

[MooCriket]

Of the movies I've seen, I love his work and think he is getting better as time goes on. Inglourious Basterds is outstanding, one of the best WWII movies ever.

Dude. Are you serious?!

Started great, but that ending...what a joke and cop out. I like his films for what they are...but damn that ending in Bastards :confused Never go full ******, Quentin....never, ever.

Wait a minute...****** is a no go now? Wow.

 

[Scareb]

Aaaaaand go me for posting in the wrong thread.

 

[CTF]

Of the movies I've seen, I love his work and think he is getting better as time goes on. Inglourious Basterds is outstanding, one of the best WWII movies ever.

You'd be pushing it to call that a WWII movie, you know.

It's a lot of fun, but it ain't about dubya dubya two.

 

[terryr]

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are great. I don't like anything else. When he was an unknown he had talent.

And he's a lousy actor.

And he's not a tough guy.

And his movies seem to hate women the more recent they get. Death Proof is an excuse to torture cheerleaders.

 

[Probe Droid]

I liked Reservoir Dogs, but he's a one-hit wonder in my eyes. No interest in anything he's made since; Jackie Brown and the Kill Bills are crap. Inglorious Basterds, as someone noted, is a good 90-minute film with an hour of extra junk added. He's too self-indulgent. His scenes go on forever for the sake of his being so in love with his inane dialogue. To a large extent, he simply just copies moments from other people's films that he's liked and strings them together.

And he's the worst actor imaginable. Steven Seagal is Olivier by comparison.

 

[Kerr Avon]

And his movies seem to hate women the more recent they get. Death Proof is an excuse to torture cheerleaders.

I don't really care for the guy, his movies, his acting, his writing, hell even his face, but I disagree with this. "Death Proof" was great that it started off as the typical exploitation flick about torturing women, and then turned around to have strong confident women torturing the torturer who then turned into a simpering *****.

 

[Solo4114]

I don't really care for the guy, his movies, his acting, his writing, hell even his face, but I disagree with this. "Death Proof" was great that it started off as the typical exploitation flick about torturing women, and then turned around to have strong confident women torturing the torturer who then turned into a simpering *****.

Yeah, let's not forget that Death Proof was part of a film called GRINDHOUSE, which itself was a play on many of the cliche awful 70s exploitation movies. Tarantino's entry in that took a convention of films from that larger genre and turned it on its head.


That said, folks may not find it particularly entertaining, but that's a different issue. I've heard plenty of criticisms of Death Proof, especially how SLOW it is (and especially how slow in comparison to Planet Terror), but Death Proof, I think, does what it sets out to do pretty well (well, the secondary goal after "entertaining the viewer," that is -- that one's subjective).

 

[Art Andrews]

I would say if you think he ever "had it" then he still "has it" because in my opinion he hasn't really changed that much. I don't mind a dialogue heavy film but I don't find his dialogue nearly as clever or witty as he does. I think Reservoir Dogs was amazing because it was the first time we saw his style, but in my opinion, every movie since has more or less been the same movie and it wore off really quickly. I remember when Pulp Fiction came out and everyone was raving about it, and I just thought it was lame... still do and have pretty much thought the same of everything he has done since then. In answer to your initial question, as a director/writer, I don't think he has changed very much at all.

 

[jlee562]

I'm in the never had it crowd.

Tarantino is EXTREMELY derivative. Reservoir Dogs = City on Fire.

 

[cayman shen]

He's had a monstrous ego from the get-go, but now it's beginning to impact the quality of his work. He's becoming very, very self-indulgent. A lot of people accused him of this at the release of Kill Bill, but for me I really saw it with IB. I never saw Death Proof, but IB was the first of his films in a long time that I felt had very little emotional depth (Jackie Brown and Kill Bill are both very stirring, imo, but IB was the point where I felt style trumped substance altogether. Other than the opening homage to the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly which was powerful).

 

[Bizarro Lois]

I've enjoyed every one of his movies so far. I actually really liked Jackie Brown. I only recently watched Inglorious Basterds and thought there were a lot of great performances and visuals.

 

[terryr]

Every director, and every actor, just repeats themselves.

Lucas is still doing it the same way. In his Head. But it's how the world sees it that has changed.

Hollywood changes people. It changes how they see the world. It's a millionaires club who get waited on by peasants constantly. They aren't part of the crowd that watches movies anymore.

 

[Weequay]

Its very interesting how different people view different films.

I like QT's body of work. Kill bill is one of my favorite films, and IB was very well made.

Deathproof however seemed to me a very lazy piece of work. It had the feel of 'me and my buddy are rich and famous so we're gonna make what ever we want'...

Now thats fine and dandy, but do it right... dont make a grindhouse pic and shoot it on nice stock, then add in jumps and dirt. Do it properly and put your money where your mouth is. Shoot it on rough 35 or 16mm stock and do it how it would have been done back 'in the day'.

Its also a terrible movie in general with some awful awful acting.

So does he still have it? YES most definatley...when he is taking the project seriously.

weequay

 

[CTF]

Tarantino is EXTREMELY derivative.

Um, anyone who know anything 'bout film know that QT steals from the best. I mean, he's pretty blatant 'bout it, too.

 

[d_osborn]

Now thats fine and dandy, but do it right... dont make a grindhouse pic and shoot it on nice stock, then add in jumps and dirt. Do it properly and put your money where your mouth is. Shoot it on rough 35 or 16mm stock and do it how it would have been done back 'in the day'.

i always wondered why they didn't do exactly that with both films. shoot on old cheap stock with a small production kit, run the final cut through a scuzzy projector a few hundred times, strike four or five generations of cheap prints, damage the film, slice and dice a few scenes, rub in some dirt, etc. it seems they took the backwards way of going about it.

that's not to say that i dislike qt, though. i loved inglorious basterds.

 

[CTF]

Death Proof is an excuse to torture cheerleaders.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

 

[micdavis]

Like everything, the less new it is, the less "good" it seems.

I still enjoy all his films, and hope he does more.

At least they are out of the ordinary or fantastic tributes.

 

[CTF]

"Exactamundo!"