Best Tarantino Film

[Annex]

Pulp Fiction #1. Followed closely by Kill Bill Vol. 1 and IB.

My vote for worst Tarantino: Death Proof. That one just sucked.

Absolutely yes. Planet Terror was alright though.

 

[holy king]

That movie was fun, but not exactly Tolstoy.

yeah art has to torture the audience with boredom in order to be art.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Tough choice for me between Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. I'll go with Pulp Fiction simply because I actually have it on DVD. Though Inglorious Basterds was pretty good too.

 

[Lord Baal]

There are some damn fine films there, but Pulp Fiction is superior to the others.

 

[Shekwan]

Jackie Brown because its less popular than Pulp Fiction but similar enough to enjoy to the same degree.

The AK-47 line is my favourite Tarantino line too.

 

[Perfection]

I like to think that the best is yet to come!

 

[Plotinus]

I haven't seen all of these, but of those I have seen I think Reservoir dogs is the best. It raises more interesting questions than the others. Pulp fiction is very clever and well done, but it seemed more like an exercise in cleverness without so much point. However, I enjoyed Jackie Brown the most - that one was excellent. I saw the first part of Kill Bill but didn't bother with the second, as the first seemed to be basically over-the-top cartoon violence (some of which was pretty unpleasant) but without any deeper point to it.

 

[Love]

The second is better if you look it from that perspective.

 

[Quackers]

My favourite is Pulp Fiction followed by Inglorius Basterds.

Kill Bill 1 made me fall asleep it was so boring..

 

[Babbler]

I guess Pulp Fiction, although I haven't seen Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown. Kill Bill Part 2 is better then Part 1, and Inglorius Basterds is so-so.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm torn between Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, but I'm probably going to have to go for the latter, simply because it seems to be, objectively, the better film, and had a greater impact on film making. My particular affection for Kill Bill is largely because it indulges so heavily in samurai and wuxia tropes, which I most certainly adore.

I saw the first part of Kill Bill but didn't bother with the second, as the first seemed to be basically over-the-top cartoon violence (some of which was pretty unpleasant) but without any deeper point to it.

The second one is better. The first one is essentially the first half of a single film, so it doesn't get into the story or characters as deeply. It does spend a little too much time faffing about, I'll admit, but I think he was just trying to build it to some sort of climax, which is a tricky thing to do half way through a story.

 

[kulade]

Pulp Fiction is probably his best, and is probably Samuel Jackson's top performance as well.

Inglorious Bastards was dull and Kill Bill thoroughly awful.

 

[duckduckswan]

Inglorious Bastards was dull

Sorry, how is that? I could understand if you said it was too gruesome or something, but a movie with so many graphic deaths is... dull? Is it because of the long dialog scenes? If so, that's what makes Terantino movies so great, his ability to capture conversations.

 

[Plotinus]

I haven't seen that film so can't comment on it in particular, but having lots of graphic deaths is perfectly consistent with a film being dull. In fact, if a film has lots of anything, that often makes it dull. The occasional graphic death is interesting. Lots of graphic deaths gets boring. (This was certainly the case with Kill Bill I, as I indicated before.) So saying that a film with lots of graphic deaths can't possibly be dull seems quite wrong to me - although as I say, I don't know whether that particular film is dull or not.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I saw Kill Bill when fairly young, but found it to be quite enjoyable, if a bit odd at times(why kill the man if you're sad about doing it? Why not just forgive him and raise your daughter together? Seriously, duty and honor are sometimes a euphemism for "stupidity.").

As it was the only one I've seen, I'll have to settle for that one.

The only other one I've seen was Death Proof, which wasn't appealing to me; I went to see Grindhouse for the zombies.

 

[kulade]

Sorry, how is that? I could understand if you said it was too gruesome or something, but a movie with so many graphic deaths is... dull? Is it because of the long dialog scenes? If so, that's what makes Terantino movies so great, his ability to capture conversations.

The movie was a one way track to predictability. I understand how one could think that the extensive dialogue was mildly entertaining, in which dominance often shifts back and forth, giving the audience a good bit of suspense, but I just felt like the conversation was so inane and didn't really move the plot forward. That may be a personal preference, but idle dialogue, despite whatever thrilling dynamic it may have, soaks up nearly all the time not dedicated to murder, which leaves a movie that hasn't really progressed from its beginning. Plus nearly every other aspect of the movie was... er ...corny. The Jewish strike team, Brad Pitt's accent, and of course the "feel-good" mass slaughter of Nazis which is obviously supposed to leave the audience with the euphoria of justifiable bloodlust. All in all, Tarantino's charm spritzes itself on every scene, but the movie is formulaic and just plain lame.

 

[Krill]

Stealer's' Wheel scene just pips Pulp Fiction for me, but there isn't a bad film to pick...

 

[Traitorfish]

...and of course the "feel-good" mass slaughter of Nazis which is obviously supposed to leave the audience with the euphoria of justifiable bloodlust.

See, now, I interpreted it as feel-bad slaughter, or at least feel-a-bit-awkward slaughter. The Basterds were so wanton in their killing, and revelled in it so much, that any halfway well adjusted person is going to become increasingly unnerved by it, stretching the usual "Nazis = fair game" rule of cinema to near-enough breaking point. No-one can watch the scene where the German officer refuses to surrender information and is beaten to death to the delight of the Basterds and declare there to be an obvious, black-and-white hero and villain. I mean, Tarantino practically beats you over the head with it when he shows Hitler guffawing at cinematic slaughter- the man Godwinned his own movie, albeit implicitly, so there's really no excuse to overlook that interpretation. It's not a particularly deep film, I'll readily admit, but it does force you to reconsider the aforementioned rule somewhat, at the very least to justify it to yourself. To write it off as nothing more than thoughtless violence does the man a disservice.

 

[duckduckswan]

Well said Traitorfish. In regards to the inane dialogue, fair enough, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But it just seems to me; after watching just about all of Tarantino's movies except Jackie Brown, that his flicks are all conversation heavy. So saying that one of the reasons you dno't like that specific film for the way the speaking bits are executed is like saying you don't like watching soccer games because they kick the ball too much.

That being said, and to argue against myself, I hated Deathproof because of the same thing. The conversations were exactly like you said about IB, stupid and never moved the plot forward. Silly (and to steal your own words) dull movie.

 

[History buff33]

Go Go will always make me love Kill Bill. I LOVE Chiaki kuriyama!